Jared O'Mara v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2023] UKFTT 381 (GRC)
E Williams v The Information Commissioner
27 February 2023
[2023] UKUT 312 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Mr. Williams repeatedly asked the police watchdog for information. A court said his requests were annoying because he kept asking even though he knew they wouldn't give him the information, and he'd never challenged their earlier refusals. A higher court agreed.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Williams appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision that his request for information to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) was vexatious under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The request concerned information relating to the death of Andre Moura and included "all image evidence" and "medical report(s)".
- •The IOPC refused the request based on section 14 FOIA (vexatious request), without relying on specific FOIA exemptions.
- •The FTT found the request vexatious considering the context of Mr. Williams' previous requests to the IOPC.
- •Mr. Williams argued the FTT deprived him of the opportunity to show that public interest in disclosure outweighed any FOIA exemption.
Legal Principles
A request for information is vexatious under section 14 FOIA if it is a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate, or improper use of the formal procedure.
Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)
Vexatiousness considers the burden on the public authority, the requester's motive, the request's value or serious purpose, and any harassment or distress.
Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)
Vexatiousness primarily involves making a request with no reasonable foundation for thinking the information would be of value to the requester or the public.
Dransfield [2015] EWCA Civ 454
The context and history of requests, including previous dealings between the requester and public authority, must be considered when assessing vexatiousness.
CP v the Information Commissioner [2016] UKUT 0427 (AAC)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal (UT) found the FTT's decision did not involve a material error of law. The UT considered the context of numerous previous requests by Mr. Williams, the lack of a prior balancing of public interests due to Mr. Williams' choice not to challenge previous refusals, and the FTT's consideration of the burden on the IOPC and lack of public interest in immediate disclosure.