Deirdre Murphy v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 512 (GRC)
S v The Information Commissioner & Anor
12 June 2024
[2024] UKFTT 488 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone repeatedly asked a council for information, leading them to believe it was harassment. Even though the initial reason was a serious event, the sheer number of requests and the impact on the council staff meant the court ruled the request was 'vexatious' and dismissed the appeal.
Key Facts
- •S (Appellant) appealed the Information Commissioner's (First Respondent) decision upholding Mid and East Antrim Borough Council's (Second Respondent) refusal of S's FOIA request under section 14(1) (vexatious request).
- •The request sought internal communications regarding S's previous correspondence with the Council and communications between the Council and HSENI concerning bonfires.
- •The Council refused the request citing section 14(1) FOIA, arguing the request was vexatious due to S's numerous previous requests and complaints.
- •The Commissioner agreed with the Council, finding the request vexatious.
- •S appealed, arguing the request was in the public interest due to media coverage, ongoing criminal investigations, and a fatality linked to bonfires.
- •The Tribunal considered the burden on the Council, S's motive, the value/seriousness of the request, and potential harassment of staff.
- •The Tribunal considered previous dealings between S and the Council dating back to 2005, including numerous FOIA requests, letters and postcards.
- •The Tribunal noted the significant burden on the Council to retrieve and process the information requested due to the nature of the Council's information management systems and staff turnover.
Legal Principles
A request for information is vexatious if it is the manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.
Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)
In assessing vexatiousness, the decision-maker should consider all relevant circumstances to reach a balanced conclusion.
Dransfield
An appropriately detailed evidential foundation addressing the course of dealings between the requestor and the public authority is necessary in assessing vexatiousness.
CP v Information Commissioner [2016] UKUT 0427 (AAC)
FOIA is 'motive blind' and 'applicant blind', but the underlying rationale for a request is relevant in applying section 14.
Independent Police Complaints Commission v Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0222)
A compelling public interest does not necessarily trump other factors in determining vexatiousness.
Cabinet Office -v- IC and Ashton [2018] UKUT 208 (AAC)
Vexatiousness may be found where an original reasonable request leads to disproportionate further requests ('vexatiousness by drift').
Commissioner’s Guidance for public authorities
Section 14 serves the legitimate public interest in protecting public authorities from irresponsible use of FOIA.
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found the request to be vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA, considering the burden on the Council, S's motive, the value/seriousness of the request, and the harassment of Council staff. The Tribunal found the Appellant's conduct had strayed beyond the original purpose, exhibiting vexatiousness by drift.