Gabriel Kanter-Webber v Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 699 (GRC)
Rabbi Gabriel Kanter-Webber v The Information Commissioner & Anor
30 January 2024
[2024] UKFTT 90 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked for recordings of a police misconduct hearing. The police refused, saying it was like a court case, so the information was protected. A judge agreed, saying the panel that ran the hearing was similar to a court, therefore the recordings didn't have to be released.
Key Facts
- •Rabbi Gabriel Kanter-Webber appealed a decision by the Information Commissioner (ICO) regarding Hampshire Constabulary's refusal to release a transcript and audio recording of a police misconduct hearing.
- •The hearing concerned allegations of gross misconduct against six officers, with three dismissed.
- •The hearing was largely public, though conducted remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions.
- •Hampshire Constabulary initially relied on FOIA section 31 (harm to investigatory functions), later adding sections 32 and 40 (court records and data protection).
- •The appellant argued the information was already in the public domain and the exemptions did not apply.
- •The ICO upheld the refusal, primarily focusing on section 31.
Legal Principles
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) exemptions: sections 31 (harm to investigatory functions), 32 (court records), and 40 (data protection).
FOIA
Definition of 'court' under FOIA section 32(4)(a) includes tribunals exercising judicial power of the state.
FOIA section 32(4)(a)
Whether a body exercises judicial power of the state is a holistic consideration; the ability to deprive a citizen of liberty is not the sole touchstone.
R (Bailey v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 821
Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and GDPR protections for special category data.
DPA, GDPR
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that a Police Misconduct Panel (PMP) is a 'court' under FOIA section 32, triggering an absolute exemption. The PMP's power to determine who is entitled to be a constable, and its quasi-judicial procedures, distinguish it from other professional regulatory bodies.