Tribunal Upholds Decision to Withhold Information in Edward Carter v The Information Commissioner & Ors, Citing Concerns Over Crime Prevention

Introduction

The case of Edward Carter v The Information Commissioner & Ors revolves around the request for disclosure of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the subsequent appeal against the decision notices given by the Information Commissioner. The appellant sought the release of a list linking companies to hereditaments along with Local Authority References (Property Reference Numbers) for purposes of transparency, economic research, and aiding the work of rating agents, among other things. The respondents, including two London Councils (City of London and Westminster City Council), raised concerns over the potential for this data to be used in fraudulent activities.

Key Facts

The appellant had requested information concerning the National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR) from the City of London Corporation (CoL) and Westminster City Council (WCC). The Information Commissioner upheld the Councils’ decision to withhold the information under section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) of FOIA, concluding that the disclosure would likely enable potential fraudsters to defraud the Councils and taxpayers.

The appellant argued that the information is largely in the public domain and could be obtained through other means, such as Companies House and the Postal Address File. The appeals focused on three legal exemptions: section 31(1)(a), concerning law enforcement; section 41, regarding information provided in confidence; and section 12, relating to the cost of compliance exceeding the appropriate limit.

Legal Principals

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement

The tribunal examined whether the release of information would likely prejudice the prevention of crime. The exemption is considered engaged if there is a real and significant risk of prejudice. It was held that providing a ready-made list for every ratepayer would weaken the Councils’ security systems, thus prejudicing the prevention of crime.

Section 41 - Information Provided in Confidence

The tribunal analyzed whether the requested information had the necessary quality of confidence, was imparted in confidence, and whether its unauthorized use would cause detriment. While not necessary for this judgment, the tribunal indicated they would not have found the information to be confidential in nature as a class, since companies, especially ratepayers, are typically required to publicly disclose their names.

Section 12 - Cost of Compliance

It was contemplated what costs could be considered in relation to section 12, specifically whether costs included ensuring only company information was disclosed, as opposed to information about partnerships or individuals. The tribunal would have accepted the Councils’ cost estimates as reasonable had the need to consider this exemption arisen.

Public Interest Test

A significant aspect of the case was balancing the public interest in maintaining the exemption against the interest in disclosure. This included assessing the public interest in promoting transparency in government, assisting economic research, and aiding the roles of rating agents versus the public interest in maintaining effective crime prevention measures and avoiding potential fraud.

Outcomes

Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed that in disclosing the information under section 31(1)(a). While not required to rule on sections 41 and 12, the separate consideration of these sections indicated that the tribunal would have found against the appellant should it have been necessary to address these exemptions.

Conclusion

In Edward Carter v The Information Commissioner & Ors, the tribunal reaffirmed the precedence of public interest in preventing crime over the interest in disclosure when it is likely to prejudice law enforcement mechanisms under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. Although the appellant’s request stemmed from a position of transparency and public utility, it was concluded that providing such a list posed a legitimate risk to crime prevention efforts. Significantly, the tribunal’s opinions on sections 41 and 12, while not determinative in the outcome, provide guidance as to how information may be classified as confidential and the costs associated with FOIA requests. This case underscores the delicate balance between transparency and security, encapsulating the challenges public authorities face when navigating requests for information while upholding their responsibilities to protect public resources and interests.