Key Facts
- •Appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (PONI) couldn't withhold information under section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •Request for correspondence between PONI and the makers of the documentary 'No Stone Unturned'.
- •PONI relied on section 63 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 to withhold information, arguing it was received 'in connection with' its functions.
- •The Commissioner disagreed, finding insufficient connection between the information and PONI's functions.
- •The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, clarifying the interpretation of 'received' and 'in connection with' in section 63.
Legal Principles
Statutory interpretation: The text of a provision should be read in the context of the Act as a whole and in its legal, social, and historical context.
R (on the application of O (a minor, by her litigation friend AO)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3; Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation
Section 44 FOIA: Information is exempt if its disclosure is prohibited by or under any enactment.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Section 63 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998: Prohibits disclosure of information received 'in connection with' the Ombudsman's functions. Penal provision.
Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998
Interpretation of penal statutes: Ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the person who would face a penalty.
Section 51(4) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998: Ombudsman 'shall' exercise powers to secure efficiency, effectiveness, independence of the complaints system, and public confidence.
Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998
Section 62 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998: Ombudsman 'may' publish statements about actions, decisions, and reasons.
Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The Tribunal clarified the meaning of 'received' and 'in connection with' in section 63, finding that some information was exempt under section 44, while other information was not.
Some withheld information falls outside the scope of the request.
Certain documents (27-35) were deemed outside the scope of Rainey's request.
PONI was entitled to rely on section 44 for some withheld information.
This information was deemed to have been received 'in connection with' PONI's functions under section 62, as clarified by the Tribunal's interpretation of section 63.
PONI was not entitled to rely on section 44 for other withheld information.
This information lacked a sufficiently close connection to PONI's functions under section 62.