Anthony Myles v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 768 (GRC)
Paul Bentley v The Information Commissioner
9 January 2024
[2024] UKFTT 18 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone repeatedly asked a government body for information, annoying them greatly. Even though their last request seemed reasonable alone, a judge decided it was part of a pattern of harassment, so they couldn't get the information. The judge looked at the whole history, not just the last request.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision under section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
- •Appellant requested information about the Bank of England's legal costs in defending an employment tribunal.
- •The Commissioner decided the Bank of England correctly refused the request under section 14 (vexatious requests).
- •Appellant's history of numerous requests to the Bank of England over several years, some within days of each other.
- •Appellant's conduct described as obsessive and causing harassment and distress to Bank of England staff.
- •Appellant's motive was to estimate costs for potential legal action regarding withheld medical records.
Legal Principles
General right of access to information held by public authorities
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Section 1
Public authorities are not obliged to comply with vexatious requests for information.
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Section 14
Definition of 'vexatious' as the manifestly unjustified, inappropriate, or improper use of a formal procedure. Factors to consider include burden on the public authority, requester's motive, value/serious purpose of the request, and harassment or distress caused.
Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)
The right to information under FOIA is significant but not overriding; Section 14 protects public authorities from irresponsible use of FOIA.
Independent Police Complaints Commission v Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0222)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found the appellant's request, while potentially reasonable in isolation, was vexatious in the context of his extensive history of requests, obsessive conduct, and harassment of public authority staff. His actions were deemed disproportionate and an improper use of the FOIA process.