Balancing Transparency and Law Enforcement: Insights from Pearl v The Information Commissioner Case

Citation: [2023] UKFTT 1077 (GRC)
Judgment on


The case of Charlotte Pearl v The Information Commissioner ([2023] UKFTT 1077 (GRC)) offers significant insights into the interplay between the public’s right to information and the protection of police investigations. This appeal in the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) under section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) sheds light on the balance between transparency and operational sensitivity within the realm of law enforcement.

Key Facts

The appellant, Charlotte Pearl, sought information from Wiltshire Police regarding their operation related to hunting and hunt protest activity. The request covered confirmation and details of any ongoing operation, its remit, and any memoranda of understanding or agreements with landowners or hunt organisers.

Wiltshire Police invoked exemptions under FOIA, namely sections 30(3) (Investigations), 31(3) (Law Enforcement), and 40(5) (Personal Information), refusing to confirm or deny whether the information existed. The police force articulated concerns that revealing such information could compromise law enforcement efforts and public safety.

Pearl appealed Wiltshire Police’s response, which was upheld by the Information Commissioner. Pearl further appealed to the Information Rights Tribunal, which culminated in the decision under review.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the correct application of FOIA exemptions by Wiltshire Police and the Information Commissioner. It considered:

  • Section 30(3) Investigations and Section 31(3) Law Enforcement: These provisions permit a public authority to neither confirm nor deny possessing information if doing so would compromise police operations or investigations. The Tribunal recognized the importance of these exemptions in protecting the integrity of law enforcement tactics and the need to assess each case on its merits.

  • Section 40(5) Personal Information: The right to privacy was also considered under this exemption, protecting individuals from potential harm that could result from revealing whether they were subjects of police interest.

  • Public Interest Test: Central to the FOIA exemptions is the public interest test, requiring a balance between the public’s right to information and public interest in safeguarding law enforcement operations. The Tribunal affirmed the Information Commissioner’s analysis and determinations that Wiltshire Police’s stance, supported by the NCND (neither confirm nor deny) response, was in the public interest.

The Tribunal highlighted that parliamentary intent behind these exemptions preserves the confidentiality necessary for effective law enforcement. The Tribunal deferred to the expertise of the public authority as being in the best position to assess the need for such exemptions.


The Tribunal’s systematic analysis led to the following outcomes:

  • The DN from the Information Commissioner did not contain any legal errors, nor was there an improper exercise of discretion in arriving at his conclusions.
  • The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Information Commissioner, upholding Wiltshire Police’s NCND response.


The Tribunal’s decision in Pearl v The Information Commissioner reinforces the legal principle that exemptions under the FOIA are crucial tools for protecting law enforcement operations. While acknowledging the public’s entitlement to information, the decision underscores the significant weight given to the expertise of police authorities in determining when and how to apply these exemptions. The case is a reminder of the delicate balance between transparency and confidentiality in matters of public safety and law enforcement efficacy.

Related Summaries