The Guardian reports today that the CPS has refused a request for disclosure of its records of the 1998 race-hate trial of Nick Griffin. In the year before he was elected leader of the BNP, Mr Griffin was given a suspended prison sentence after being convicted of an offence under the Public Order Act 1986. The prosecution case centred on a magazine edited by Mr Griffin in which he dismissed the Holocaust as a hoax. The Guardian’s article indicates that the paper requested disclosure of the CPS’s records of the trial in circumstances where no transcript had been made of the hearing. It would appear that the request was refused by the CPS under s. 40 FOIA (the personal data exemption) and, in particular, on the basis that a large proportion of the requested information was ‘sensitive personal data’ as it related to the commission of an offence and Mr Griffin’s political opinions (see section 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998). It would appear that the Guardian will now lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner. For an example of how the Information Tribunal applied s. 40 FOIA to a request for disclosure of personal data about individuals who had been made subject to ASBOs see further Camden v IC EA/2007/21
THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL - ACCESSING NICK GRIFFIN TRIAL RECORDS UNDER FOIA
January 23rd, 2010 by Anya ProopsAbortion statistics: identification of patients and doctors held to be unlikely
November 2nd, 2009 by Robin HopkinsIn 2003, the Department of Health significantly reduced the detail of publicly available statistics on abortion operations: for example, no information was any longer to be released about post-24-week abortions carried out on the grounds of foetal medical defects. The Department relied principally on s. 40 FOIA in refusing the Prolife Alliance’s request for more detailed data. The Information Tribunal has, however, ordered the statistics to be disclosed: see Department of Health v IC (Additional Party: the Pro Life Alliance) (EA/2008/0074). The Tribunal agreed with the Department that the requested abortion statistics, although entirely anonymised, did constitute personal data because they were not anonymous in the hands of the data controller. The Department’s principal concern, namely the inferential identification of doctors or patients, was not, however considered ‘likely’ in the circumstances. This factual finding meant that, in the Tribunal’s view, the release of the requested personal data was fair and lawful and that (under paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2 to the DPA) the potential prejudice to patients and doctors was outweighed by legitimate third party interests in (inter alia) monitoring compliance with abortion law, identifying abortion trends, informing public debate and encouraging accountability of medical practitioners. The decision is of note for its detailed analysis of the ways in which individuals might be identified from statistical data, and for the Tribunal’s reliance on the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons litigation (in its various stages) for guidance on the balancing test under paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2 to the DPA.
Disclosing Disciplinary Records Under FOIA
June 16th, 2009 by Anya ProopsThe Information Tribunal has recently handed down a decision in which it upheld the Commissioner’s conclusion that information as to judges’ serious misconduct was exempt from disclosure under the personal data exemption provided for under s. 40(2)(c) FOIA – Guardian Newspapers v IC (EA/2008/0084). The decision is interesting not least because it highlights the Tribunal’s continuing reluctance to treat personal data concerning disciplinary matters as being disclosable under FOIA (see further on this point the earlier cases of Waugh v IC & Doncaster College (EA/2007/0060) and Roger Salmon v IC & King’s College (EA/2007/0135)). Notably, the Tribunal also held that the information in question was exempt under s. 31(1)(c) FOIA (administration of justice exemption).
The central issue in the appeal was whether disclosure of the information would contravene the first data protection principle (DPP1) contained in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and, hence, render the information absolutely exempt from disclosure under s. 40(2)(c) FOIA. The Tribunal held that DPP1 would be contravened. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal took into account in particular the facts that:
· the DPA contained an exclusion which prevented judicial office holders themselves gaining access to data which revealed assessments of their ‘suitability to hold judicial office’ and it would be an odd result if third parties could access such data under FOIA but the data subjects themselves could not (para. 91);
· some of the information would amount to sensitive personal data which would require that one of the stringent conditions contained in Schedule 3 be met in order for the disclosure to be in accordance with DPP1 (para. 92);
· some information was already in the public domain as to the fact and scope of reprimands or serious actions (para. 93);
· the judges themselves would have a reasonable expectation that their disciplinary record would be kept confidential (para. 96);
· there would a risk that judges would suffer great distress if the information were to be disclosed and, further, that their future authority and their future employment prospects would be jeopardised (para. 97).
In addition the Tribunal held that s. 31(1)(c) FOIA was engaged in respect of the information and that the public interest weighed in favour of maintaining that exemption. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal took into account in particular the fact that, in its view, disclosure of the information would undermine a judge’s authority while carrying out his or her judicial function and would otherwise disrupt the judicial process by encouraging legal representatives to seek adjournments by reason of alleged concerns about the judge’s good standing (para. 106). 11KBW’s Karen Steyn appeared on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.
ABORTION STATISTICS AND PERSONAL DATA
May 27th, 2009 by Anya Proops
The Information Tribunal will this week begin hearing an important appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner that certain abortion statistics relating to ground (e) abortions (abortions in cases of disability) were disclosable under section 1 FOIA. The appeal concerns in particular the interesting and difficult question of whether and to what extent ostensibly anonymous, statistical information can nonetheless constitute ‘personal data’ for the purposes of the personal data exemption provided for under section 40 FOIA. Before the Commissioner, the DH argued that, whilst the information in the abortion statistics does not per se identify any particular individual, because the statistics themselves relate to a relatively small number of cases, it would still be possible to identify particular patients and/or doctors who have carried out the abortions, particularly if the statistics were married either with other information held by the DH or already in the public domain. The Commissioner was not persuaded by that argument. He held that the statistical information was so far removed from the information on the Abortion Notification forms from which the information was derived that it no longer retained the attributes of personal data. The proposition that proximity to identifying information should be the barometer of whether particular anonymous information constitutes ‘personal data’ is likely to be hotly contested before the Tribunal. Watch this space for further news! Tim Pitt-Payne will be appearing on behalf of the Commissioner.
DPA/FOIA overlap
April 14th, 2009 by Timothy Pitt-PayneThe overlap between FOIA and the DPA gives rise to a number of difficult problems.
In a paper just posted on 11KBW’s website (and originally delivered to a JUSTICE/Sweet & Maxwell conference in December 2008) I discuss some of these issues. In particular, I deal with the practical problems that arise when an individual makes a request for information to a public authority and some (but not all) of the information constitutes his own personal data. Because the request falls under both the DPA and FOIA, the Information Commissioner will need to deal with any complaint under two different legal regimes; if the requester subsequently appeals, the Information Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to deal with all the issues raised by the request. The article suggests that the present position is unsatisfactory and discusses options for reform.
Recent ICO decisions on Freedom of Information
April 8th, 2009 by Amy Rogers
In Decision Notice FS50139215, issued this week, the Commissioner has ordered the Met Police to disclose particular CCTV footage showing the movements of the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks on London on 7 July 2005.
The Met had argued that the footage was exempt from disclosure under sections 30(1)(a) (information held for the purposes of an investigation) and 38(1)(a) (health and safety) of FOIA.
The Commissioner accepted that the exemption in section 30(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of FOIA was engaged. However, he rejected arguments that such disclosure would render meaningful police investigation impossible and that, pending any trial, the CCTV footage should only be disclosed to the CPS, the Courts or other bodies involved in the investigative process.
The Commissioner’s comments on the public interest in full disclosure of any material relating to the 7/7 bombings are of particular interest. He noted, for example, that whilst there had already been widespread media coverage in relation to the bombings, “full disclosure in order to avoid any suspicion of ‘spin’ or ‘cover up’ will continue to be in the public interest regardless of the volume of related information that has previously been disclosed”. On similar lines, he observed that in circumstances in which the 7/7 attacks had been the subject of conspiracy theories, the fact that “disclosure would presumably support the official account of the time line and basic facts of the attacks and reduce any perceived lack of transparency about how this account was formed, along with removing any suspicion of ‘spin’ or ‘cover up’” was a valid public interest factor in favour of disclosure.
The Commissioner rejected the Met’s claim that the exemption under section 38(1)(a) of FOIA (health and safety) was engaged at all, emphasising that the arguments advanced by the Met on this point had lacked detail in relation to the specific CCTV footage in question. He also concluded that, whilst not cited by the Met, the personal data exemption in section 40(2) of FOIA was engaged in respect of footage from which individuals other than the perpetrators of the attacks could be identified. The Met must redact this information, such as by pixellation, before the footage is disclosed.
In other Decision Notices issued this week, the Commissioner has held that:
- Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester Universities and Kings College and University College, London must disclose information relating to primate research. A complainant had sought such information from a number of universities, including information as to the numbers and species of primates referred to in returns to the Home Office, and as to current research. The Commissioner held that the exemptions relied upon by the universities were not engaged (variously, sections 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal data) and 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA).
- The Department of Health must disclose civil servants’ submissions to Ministers in relation to proposed variations to consultants’ contracts as part of its ‘modernising medical careers’ initiative. Whilst the exemption in section 35(1)(a) (policy) of FOIA was engaged, the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh that in disclosure (FS50151464).
- In contrast, the FCO was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held particular information as to identification of a voice heard in the video showing the beheading of Ken Bigley in Iraq in 2004. The FCO successfully relied upon sections 23(5) (information supplied by or relating to the security services) and 24(2) (national security) of FOIA (FS50188323).