Tribunal Rules Police Misconduct Panel Qualifies as Court in FOIA Exemption Case

Citation: [2024] UKFTT 90 (GRC)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Rabbi Gabriel Kanter-Webber v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2024] UKFTT 90 (GRC), the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) was tasked with determining whether certain exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) applied to withhold a transcript and audio recordings from a police misconduct hearing. The case delves into the nature of a Police Misconduct Panel (PMP) and whether it constitutes a court for the purposes of exemptions under FOIA. This article analyses the legal principles applied by the Tribunal and elucidates how these principles were connected to the key issues at hand.

Key Facts

Rabbi Gabriel Kanter-Webber appealed for the release of documentation related to a serious police misconduct hearing involving allegations of discriminatory remarks by officers. The Hampshire Constabulary refused the request, citing exemptions under sections 31, 32, and 40 of FOIA. The Information Commissioner supported the applicability of section 31 but did not substantively address sections 32 or 40. The Tribunal’s primary task was to determine if the information fell under these exemptions, particularly under section 32 concerning whether PMP was a “court” and thus exempt from FOIA requests.

The Tribunal’s decision hinged on several key legal principles, which were used to interpret the relevant statutory provisions:

FOIA Exemptions

The core issue was the application of FOIA exemptions, particularly section 32, which provides an absolute exemption for information held by a court or tribunal exercising judicial power. The Tribunal needed to assess if a PMP is such a court or body.

Definition of a “Document”

The Tribunal examined whether audio recordings are “documents” within the meaning of section 32, guided by Edem v ICO and MOJ [2015]. The definition was extended to include any recorded information.

Judicial Power of the State

A significant part of the analysis was whether the PMP exercises the “judicial power of the state,” a prerequisite for a body to be considered a court under section 32 of FOIA. This determination was influenced by case law, such as R (Bailey v Secretary of State for Justice [2023]).

Police Disciplinary Tribunals as Courts

Precedents were considered, including Leary v BBC and GMC v BBC [1998], to determine whether a police disciplinary tribunal falls within the definition of a court. However, both cases were historical and did not conclusively address this issue in the context of FOIA.

Public Office and the Role of Constables

The case recognized that constables hold a unique public office with the power to arrest and compel, drawing a distinction from other regulated professions and bolstering arguments that PMP exercises judicial power when stripping individuals of this office.

Application of Data Protection Act (DPA)

The Tribunal also considered how the DPA interfaces with FOIA, noting that special category data relating to political opinions or philosophical beliefs (potentially revealed through the records sought) would receive robust protection under DPA if not under the purview of court proceedings.

Outcomes

The Tribunal ultimately found that:

  • The PMP, when chaired by a legally qualified chair, exercises the judicial power of the state and is a court within the meaning of section 32 FOIA.
  • The audio recordings, and by extension any transcripts from them, were deemed documents created by a court for the purposes of proceedings.
  • Given these conclusions, the Tribunal found that the section 32 exemption applied and that it was unnecessary to consider sections 31 or 40 of FOIA in this case.

Conclusion

In Rabbi Gabriel Kanter-Webber v The Information Commissioner & Anor, the Tribunal’s analytical journey through the relevant statutory provisions and case law led to the dismissal of the appeal. The decision affirms the exemption of certain information held by bodies deemed to exercise judicial power from FOIA requests. The case serves as a precedent for understanding which entities can be considered courts under FOIA and emphasizes the shift in how disciplinary tribunals are perceived in light of their significant role in exercising the coercive powers of the state.