Tribunal Rules in Favor of Disclosure Over Exemption in Ian Hudson v The Information Commissioner Case Under FOIA

Citation: [2024] UKFTT 166 (GRC)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Ian Hudson v The Information Commissioner (2024 UKFTT 166 (GRC)), the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) on Information Rights delivered a decision that scrutinises the balance between withholding and disclosing information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The key topics discussed revolve around the exemption under section 30(3) of FOIA and the public interest test contained in section 2(1)(b) of the same act.

Key Facts

Ian Hudson, the appellant, requested information from Sussex Police regarding the purchase or rental dates of a specific “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Detect and Warn Capability” utilized on 20 December 2018, during an incident at Gatwick Airport. Sussex Police refused to confirm or deny if they held the information, invoking section 30(3) of FOIA. Upon review, the Information Commissioner upheld Sussex Police’s decision. Hudson appealed to the First-tier Tribunal, challenging the Information Commissioner’s analysis and the application of the public interest test.

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Section 1(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA: These sections stipulate the public right to information held by public authorities, subject to exemptions.

Section 2(1) of FOIA: This section explains when duties under section 1(1)(a) do not apply, focusing on cases involving absolute exemption or where the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the interest in disclosure.

Section 30(1)(a),(b),(c) of FOIA: Here, an exemption is granted for information held by public authorities for investigations to determine if a person should be charged or is guilty of an offence or for criminal proceedings the authority can conduct.

Section 30(3) of FOIA: Specifies that authorities are not required to confirm or deny information if it falls under the exemption mentioned above.

Public Interest Test

The pivotal legal principle applied in this case is the public interest test under section 2(1)(b) of FOIA. The Tribunal evaluated if the public interest in maintaining the nondisclosure outweighs the interest in confirming or denying the information held.

Case Law

Lubicz v Information Commissioner and King’s College London [2015] UKUT 555 (AC): Cited in the Commissioner’s response to emphasize the role of an independent regulator in keeping the merits of decisions under review.

The Tribunal also relied on its powers under section 58 of FOIA to make a fresh decision on the case and did not merely review the Commissioner’s decision.

Outcomes

The Tribunal concluded that disclosure of the requested dates would not compromise ongoing or related investigations, the protection offered to members of the public, or the detection capabilities of the police. It found that the public interest in transparency and accountability outweighed the interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny if the information was held. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the appeal, stating that the Sussex Police must disclose the information within 28 days unless such disclosure could be certified to the Upper Tribunal as contempt.

Conclusion

The case of Ian Hudson v The Information Commissioner reflects a significant application of FOIA, where the Tribunal carefully scrutinized whether an exemption based on section 30(3) concerning investigatory material was appropriate and whether the public interest was best served by disclosure. The Tribunal’s thorough application of the public interest test reinforces the FOIA’s essential purpose: ensuring transparency and accountability of public authorities. This case serves as an important precedent for balancing the need for secrecy in police investigations with the broader public interest in information access and will likely impact future interpretations and applications of exemptions under the FOIA.