Paul Rolleston v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 824 (GRC)
Nigel Rawlins v The Information Commissioner
1 November 2023
[2023] UKFTT 916 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the police for information about a former officer's disciplinary record. The police and the Information Commissioner said no, to protect the officer's privacy. A court agreed with them, saying protecting the officer's privacy was more important than releasing the information.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision under section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •Appellant requested information from Sussex Police about disciplinary actions against a former officer.
- •Sussex Police refused the request under section 40(5B) of FOIA, citing protection of third-party personal data.
- •The Information Commissioner upheld Sussex Police's refusal.
- •Appellant argued that Sussex Police's refusal to disclose information created a risk to public safety.
- •The appeal focused on the balance between public interest and the individual's right to data protection.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), Section 40(5B)
FOIA
Data Protection Principle under Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR
UK GDPR
Legitimate Interest as a condition for lawful processing under Article 6(1) UK GDPR
UK GDPR
Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020
Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Information Commissioner correctly applied section 40(5B) of FOIA. The potential prejudice to the individual's rights and freedoms outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient legitimate interest to outweigh the data subject's rights.