Lownie v Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKUT 116 (AAC)
Robert Fryers & Anor v The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
30 January 2024
[2024] UKUT 48 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
Two men sued the government for withholding some information from their internment files from the 1970s. The government said releasing this info could hurt national security. The court agreed with the government, saying they're the ones who get to decide what's a national security risk.
Key Facts
- •Two appeals against national security certificates issued under section 28(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998).
- •Appeals relate to redactions in files concerning the appellants' internment in Northern Ireland during the 1970s.
- •Appellants requested access to their files under section 7 of the DPA 1998.
- •Original certificates were withdrawn and replaced.
- •The Upper Tribunal heard evidence in open and closed sessions.
- •The appeals challenged the SOSNI's grounds for issuing the certificates on grounds of mistake of fact, failure to consider material facts, and irrationality.
Legal Principles
On an appeal against a national security certificate, the Tribunal may only quash the certificate if, applying the principles of judicial review, the Minister did not have reasonable grounds for issuing it.
Section 28(5) DPA 1998
In national security cases, due weight must be given to the assessment and conclusions of the Secretary of State, who is best placed to judge what national security requires.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47
Decisions as to whether something is in the interests of national security are not a matter for judicial decision but are entrusted to the executive.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47
Inconsistency is not a ground for judicial review.
R (Gallagher Group) v The Competition and Markets Authority [2018] UKSC 25
Outcomes
Appeals dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the SOSNI had reasonable grounds for issuing the certificates. While acknowledging some force in the appellants' arguments regarding prior disclosure, the Tribunal emphasized the SOSNI's entitlement to a wide margin of appreciation in national security matters and her right to adopt a precautionary approach. The Tribunal considered evidence heard in closed session, which supported the SOSNI's assessment of ongoing risks.