Stephen John Gullick v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 985 (GRC)
Reuben Kirkham v The Information Commissioner & Anor
29 February 2024
[2024] UKFTT 7 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the ICO for information about why Alan Dransfield was banned from making complaints. The ICO said they didn't have the info, but the court said they didn't look hard enough. The court also said the ICO was right to keep some other information private because the person they were protecting hadn't agreed to it being shared beforehand.
Key Facts
- •Reuben Kirkham appealed the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) decision to refuse his FOI request regarding Alan Dransfield.
- •The request sought information on correspondence related to a section 50(2) decision against Dransfield, deeming his complaints vexatious.
- •The ICO claimed it held no information on internal discussions (part ii) and that data protection exemptions applied to correspondence (parts i and iii).
- •Dransfield later consented to the release of the information in parts i and iii.
- •The Tribunal found the ICO's search for information regarding internal discussions (part ii) insufficient.
- •The Tribunal upheld the ICO's decision regarding parts i and iii, finding the data protection exemption applicable, despite Dransfield's consent given after the decision.
Legal Principles
FOIA Section 1(1)(a): Right to be informed whether a public authority holds information of the description specified in the request.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
FOIA Section 40(2): Exemption for personal data where disclosure would contravene data protection principles.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
GDPR Article 6(1)(f): Processing of personal data is lawful if necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller.
General Data Protection Regulation
GDPR: Consent must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous.
General Data Protection Regulation
Sufficient Search under FOIA: The scope, quality, and thoroughness of searches must be sufficient to conclude whether information is held.
Bromley v IC and Environment Agency EA/2006/0072
Interpretation of FOIA requests: An objective reading of the request in light of relevant background facts.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport v IC
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The ICO's search for information regarding internal discussions (part ii) was deemed insufficient. The ICO's application of section 40(2) to parts (i) and (iii) was upheld due to lack of prior consent and the balancing of interests.
Substitute Decision Notice issued.
The ICO must undertake a fresh search for minutes or internal correspondence related to the section 50(2) decision against Dransfield (part ii).