Information Rights Law and Practice: Fourth Edition 9781849468367

Citation preview

PHILIP COPPEL QC Contributors PROFESSOR JOHN ANGEL A Judge of the Upper and First-tier Tribunals and former President of the Information Tribunal RICHARD CLAYTON QC 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square JOANNE CLEMENT 11KBW ESTELLE DEHON Cornerstone GERRY FACENNA Monckton ELEANOR GRAY QC 39 Essex Street HENRY KING Fountain Court JAMES MAURICI QC Landmark GAVIN MILLAR QC

Doughty Street JENNIFER ROBINSON Bertha Foundation OLIVER SANDERS 1 Crown Office Row NICHOLAS SAUNDERS Brick Court HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHANKS A Judge of the Crown Court BANKIM THANKI QC Fountain Court ANTONY WHITE QC Matrix

PREFACE

Preface The stream of decisions on information rights continues unabated. As many of the recent decisions in the First-tier Tribunal are simply the application of established principles, I have not attempted in this edition to list them all. This work is intended to state and explain principles. Annotation with every authority regardless of its significance would hinder rather than help that object. I have, however, continued to note all First-tier Tribunals decisions that either establish a principle or provide a good illustration of established principle. Decisions of the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have all been noted as required. Notwithstanding the increased wealth of domestic authority, I have retained the comparative jurisprudence. It continues to provide a useful normative yardstick, illustrating how other democratic countries with similar legal traditions have addressed the problems to which such legislation inevitably gives rise. I noted in the Preface to the Second Edition that it was not to be expected that New Year’s Day 2005 would be marked by precipitate culture change within government departments or elsewhere. Indeed, almost a decade into the full operation of the Act and it is possible to discern an increased impatience with if not a hardening of approach to the concepts that animate the legislation. The Preface to the 1998 White Paper setting out the Government’s Proposals for a Freedom of Information Act proclaimed: “The traditional culture of secrecy will only be broken down by giving people in the United Kingdom the legal right to know.” 15 years later that same person wrote: “Freedom of Information. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it.” The truths to be found in both extracts belie the predictability of the journey. It is the same path as trodden by the Congressional sponsor of the US FOI Act. Such evolution sings a siren song of advancement — no matter that that would return us to ancient concepts. Of greater interest is the increased recognition elsewhere of the interrelationship between the right conferred by the freedom of information legislation with other rights, particularly the right to an effective, free press. Thess relationships are yet to be fully worked through, but it is to be hoped that the courts of this country will push their recognition rather than be pulled into recognition. I have taken the opportunity in this edition to invigorate the work with new contributors. Here I have deliberately cast the net wide, with preeminence my only guiding principle. I have been amply rewarded. I am grateful for the expertise that they have brought into the text. It is easy to fallback on simply adding new citations between editions. My contributors have protected me from this. Existing text has been considered afresh, citations checked, new material has been introduced and old material excised. All the while, the structure and strengths of earlier editions have been kept.

vii

I am grateful too for those who have written to me with comments, criticisms or suggestions. Regardless of whether I have adopted them, they have invariably been both thoughtful and helpful. They are always welcomed. I repeat my indebtedness to Richard Hart and those with him for continuing to support this publication. As far as practicable, I have attempted to state the law in light of the material available to me at 1 December 2013. Philip Coppel QC 1 March 2014

viii

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

Preface to the First Edition The enactment of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 represents the most significant step in the development within the United Kingdom of the right of an individual to elicit information from a public authority. Over the 40 preceding years, a patchwork of legislation had provided the individual with limited rights of access to information held by public authorities. Invariably, these rights were confined in scope by reference to the subject matter of the information, to the identity of the public authority holding the information, to the identity of the person seeking the information, or to any combination of these. While Freedom of Information Act 2000 largely dispenses with these limitations, the patchwork of earlier legislation remains in place. To the extent that a right of access to particular information can be grounded in the earlier legislation, the regime operates to require that that right be used over the right that might otherwise exist under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Both for the individual seeking to secure information from a public authority and for the public authority responding to a request for information, what is of paramount concern is whether there is a right of access to that information: it is not merely whether there is a right of access to that information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This work has therefore sought to treat comprehensively rights of access to information held by public authorities, whatever the source of that right. These have been compendiously termed “information rights”. It is, in any event, a term that I consider better describes the reality, with its sharply competing considerations, than does “freedom of information”. The work is a practitioner’s text. By this I do not just mean legal practitioners, but all those whose occupation involves seeking or handling requests for official information. Its purpose is not evangelical: that is a purpose that is well served by the material already on offer. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is at once both complex and subtle. It is to be hoped that this work will assist in resolving its complexities and in revealing its subtleties. The complexities, which may seem needless at times, are in no small part due to its respect for the earlier evolution of information rights. It is only by simultaneously considering these other information rights that its complexities can begin to be unpicked. Both during its passage through Parliament and afterwards, considerable criticism was levelled at the range of exemptions provided by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is enough for present purposes to make the following observation. It is true that the Act has been cast widely, with an extensive range of public authorities being netted; but it is also true that the mesh of that net is wide in parts. And yet, this is to miss the central feature of the Freedom of Information Act 2000: the role of the public interest and of the Information Commissioner. Together, these result in the ultimate “strength” of the Act lying in the hands of the latter through his conceptualisation of the former. Inevitably, there has within this work been a certain amount of speculation as to the meaning and operation of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have sought to found that speculation upon a consideration of cognate branches of the law and by reference to the jurisprudence of comparative jurisdictions. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 will, of course, have to be interpreted according to its own terms and having regard to the circumstances and standards of this jurisdiction. However, in asking and answering the right

ix

questions on issues involving complex and sensitive concepts, it is illuminating to consider how other democratic jurisdictions enjoying similar legal traditions have addressed these issues. That a comparable jurisdiction has had to wrestle with these issues is comforting; that that jurisdiction has worked out solutions consistent with its constitutional standards is both invaluable and instructive. Given that freely available databases on the Internet enable sedentary access to most of the comparative authorities cited in this work, it would be wilful to ignore this seam of jurisprudence. In writing this book, I must first extend my gratitude to the contributors. Having been persuaded or cajoled by me into joining an enterprise that I promised would not materially interfere with their practices, I provided each with piles of material and lists of authorities that I feel reasonably confident none expected. The work has been much enhanced by their expertise and their contributions. For any remaining shortcomings in the book, I take full responsibility. I am grateful to Mr Justice Richards for making the time to read the proofs and to write his generous Foreword. Finally, I thank my father for his unstinting support for me in this project. I have attempted to state the law in light of the material available to me at January 1, 2004. It is intended to keep the book updated by the issue of cumulative supplements as appropriate. Comments on the work, critical or otherwise, are generally welcomed. Philip Coppel 1 January 2004

x

TABLES OF CASES United Kingdom A v A (Issue of Reporting Restrictions) [2012] EWHC 4226 (Fam)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2012/4226.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

A v B plc [2002] EWCA Civ 337, [2003] QB 195, [2002] 2 All ER 545,[2002] 1 FLR 1021, [2002] 2 FCR 158, [2002] HRLR 25, [2002] UKHRR 457, 12 BHRC 466; reversing [2001] 1 WLR 2341, [2002] 1 All ER 449,[2002] 1 FLR 179, [2002] 1 FCR 369, [2002] www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/337.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806, 822, 824, 832 A v B, C and D [2005] EWHC 1651, [2005] EMLR 36

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1651.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832

R (A) v Chief Constable of C, sub nom R v Chief Constables of C and D Ex p A [2001] 1 WLR 461, [2001] 2 FCR 431, [2001] ACD 43 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/408.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162, 387 R (A) v Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court, sub nom A, Re, Times Newspapers, Re [2006] EWCA Crim 4, [2006] 1 WLR 1361, [2006] 2 All ER 1, [2006] 2 Cr App R 2, [2006] HRLR 10, [2006] Crim LR 757 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/4.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 R (A) v Director of Establishments of the Security Service [2009] UKSC 12, [2010] 2 WLR 1 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2009/12.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578, 594, 632, 638 R (A) v HM Coroner for Inner South London, sub nom A v Inner South London Coroner, Bennett v A [2004] EWCA Civ 1439, [2005] UKHRR 44 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1439.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 A v Independent News & Media Ltd & ors [2010] EWCA Civ 343, [2010] 1 WLR 2262, [2010] 3 All ER 32, [2010] 2 FCR 187, (2010) 113 BMLR 162, [2010] EWCA Civ 343, [2010] 2 FLR 1290, [2010] Fam Law 705 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/343.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 A v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 11 July 2006

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2006_0012.html . . . . . . 138, 143, 147, 164, 777, 784, 789

A v M (Family Proceedings: Publicity) [2000] 1 FLR 562, [2000] 1 FCR 1, [2000] Fam Law 26 . . . . . . . . . . . 831 A v Secretary of State for Home Department (No 1) [2002] EWCA Civ 1502, [2004] QB 335 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1502.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, C v Secretary of State for the Home Department, D v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71, [2006] 2 AC 221; reversing [2004] EWCA Civ 1123, [2005] 1 WLR 414, [2004] HRLR 38 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/71.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, sub nom X v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, [2005] 2 AC 68,[2005] 3 All ER 169, [2005] HRLR 1, [2005] UKHRR 175, 17 BHRC 496, [2005] Imm AR 103; reversing [2002] EWCA Civ 1502, [2004] QB 335, [2003] 1 All ER 816, [2003] HRLR 3, [2002] UKHRR 1141, 13 BHRC 394 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/56.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505, 592, 620, 621 A v X and B (Disclosure: Non-party Medical Records) [2004] EWHC 447 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2004/447.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 A Health Authority v X (No1), sub nom A Health Authority v X (Discovery: Medical Conduct) (No1) [2001] EWCA Civ 2014, [2002] 2 All ER 780, [2002] 1 FLR 1045, [2002] 2 FCR 357, [2002] Lloyd’s Rep Med 139, [2002] Fam Law 342 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/2014.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 AXA Equity & Law Life Assurance Society plc v National Westminster Bank plc [1998] CLC 1177 (CA); affirming [1998] PNLR 433 (Ch) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/782.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 R (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2002] EWCA Civ 1598, [2003]

xxi

TABLES OF CASES UKHRR 76

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1598.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621

Ackroyds (London) Ltd v Islington Plastics Ltd[1962] RPC 97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 Adair v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 14 January 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0043.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369, 450 Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 (HL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes), sub nom Agassi v Robertson (Inspector of Taxes), Set v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) [2006] UKHL 23, [2006] 1 WLR 1380, [2006] 3 All ER 97, [2006] STC 1056, 77 TC 686, [2006] BTC 372 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/23.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Ainslie v Information Commissioner and Dorset County Council [2012] UKUT 441 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/441.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215, 448, 905, 923 AJA v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2013] EWCA Civ 1342 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1342.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 Al Fayed v Secretary of State for Home Department, Information Tribunal, 28 February 2002 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2002/NSA3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509, 569, 629, 637 Al Rawi & ors v Security Service & ors [2011] UKSC 34, [2012] 1 AC 531 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/34.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591, 592 R (Al Rawi) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2006] EWCA Civ 1279, [2008] QB 289 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1279.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 R (Alamieyeseigha) v Crown Prosecution Service [2005] EWHC 2704, [2006] Crim LR 669 (QB) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2704.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654 Prince Albert v Strange (1849) 1 Mac & G 25, (1849) 1 De G & Sm 652 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/1849/J20.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804 Alcock v Cooke (1829) 5 Bing 340 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Alcock v Information Commissioner and Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police, Information Tribunal, 3 January 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0022.html . . . . . . . . . . . 140, 413, 530, 688, 786, 789 R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23, [2003] 2 AC 295, [2001] 2 All ER 929 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/23.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition v Information Commissioner and Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2013] UKUT 0560 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/560.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523, 925, 928 All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Defence [2011] UKUT 153 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2011/153.html . . . 144, 145, 446, 474, 497, 621, 657, 658, 660, 663, 664, 849, 850, 915, 916, 924 All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition v Information Commissioner and Foreign & Commonwealth Office, First-tier Tribunal, 3 May 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0049.html . . . . 100, 609, 610, 621, 625, 634, 653, 658, 660, 662-664, 737, 749 Alliance & Leicester Building Society v Ghahremani [1992] RVR 198 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Allison v Information Commissioner and HMRC, Information Tribunal, 22 April 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0089.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Allsopp v Wheatcroft (1872) Law Rep 15 Eq 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839 Al-Sabah v Grupo Torras SA [2005] UKPC 1, [2005] 2 AC 333, [2005] 2 WLR 904, [2005] 1 All ER 871, [2005] BPIR 544 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2005/1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, [2007] 3 WLR 33

xxii

TABLES OF CASES www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1439.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

R (Al-Sweady) v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWHC 1687 (Admin) (DC) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/1687.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591 Alterskye v Scott [1948] 1 All ER 469, (1948) 92 SJ 220 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342, 882 Amber Size and Chemical Company, Limited v Menzel [1913] 2 Ch 239 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 Ambrosiadou v Coward [2010] EWCA Civ 409, [2011] EMLR 21, [2011] Fam Law 690 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/409.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 Ames v Information Commissioner and Cabinet Office, Information Tribunal, 24 April 2008 . . . . . 455, 544, 915 R (Amin (Imtiaz)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, sub nom R (on the application of Middleton) v HM Coroner for Western Somerset, R (on the application of Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner [2003] UKHL 51, [2004] 1 AC 653, [2003] 3 WLR 1169, [1998] 1 WLR 972, [2003] 4 All ER 1264, [2004] HRLR 3, [2004] UKHRR 75, 15 BHRC 362, (2004) 76 BMLR 143 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/51.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 R (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) [2005] EWCA Civ 1605, [2006] QB 468, [2006] 2 WLR 850, [2006] 4 All ER 194, (2006) 88 BMLR 59 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1605.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 Anderson v Information Commissioner and Parades Commission, Information Tribunal, 29 April 2008 . . . . . 798 Anglo Irish Bank Corporation v West LB AG [2009] EWHC 207 (Comm) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2009/207.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1968/6.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 Annersley v Anglesea (Earl) (1743) LR 5 QB 317n, 17 State Tr 1139 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815 The Annette [1919] P 105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654 R (Anufrijeva) v London Borough of Southwark [2003] EWCA Civ 1406, [2004] QB 1124, [2004] 2 WLR 603, [2004] 1 All ER 833, [2004] 1 FLR 8, [2003] 3 FCR 673, [2004] HRLR 1, [2004] UKHRR 1, 15 BHRC 526, [2004] HLR 22, [2004] BLGR 184 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1406.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 Applause Store Productions Ltd v Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781 (QB) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1781.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim (No3) [1991] 2 AC 114, [1991] 2 WLR 729, [1991] 1 All ER 871, [1991] BCC 180 (HL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656 Archer v Information Commissioner and Salisbury District Council, Information Tribunal, 9 May 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0037.html . . 194, 195, 213, 219, 221, 225-228, 530, 717, 724 Arkison v Information Commissioner and Office of Fair Trading, First-tier Tribunal, 29 September 2011 . . . 363 Armitt v Information Commissioner and Home Office, First-tier Tribunal, 5 October 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/EA_2012_0041.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691 Armstrong v Information Commissioner and HMRC, Information Tribunal, 14 October 2008 . . . . 532, 546, 547, 684, 685 Re Arrows Ltd (No 4) [1995] 2 AC 75, [1994] 3 WLR 656, [1994] 3 All ER 814, [1994] BCC 641, [1994] 2 BCLC 738, [1995] 1 Cr App R 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808 Arsenal Football Club v Elite Sports Distribution Ltd (No1) [2002] EWHC 3057, [2003] FSR 26 . . . . . . . . . . 332 Arts and Humanities Research Council v Information Commissioner and Bimmler, First-tier Tribunal, 4 December 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494, 496, 523, 524, 527, 786 Ashburton v Pape [1913] 2 Ch 469 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719, 722 Ashdown v Telegraph Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142, [2002] Ch 149, [2001] 3 WLR 1368, [2001] 4 All ER 666, [2001] EMLR 44, [2001] HRLR 57, [2001] UKHRR 1242 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1142.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813

xxiii

TABLES OF CASES Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN [2002] UKHL 29, (2002) 12 BHRC 443, [2002] CPLR 712, [2002] EMLR 36, (2002) 67 BMLR 175, [2002] 1 WLR 2033, [2002] 4 All ER 193, [2003] FSR 17, [2002] UKHRR 1263, [2002] HRLR 41 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/29.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335, 337, 809 Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd v Anglo-Persian [1916] 1 KB 822 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 2, [2012] 2 AC 471, [2012] 3 WLR 1, [2012] 4 All ER 1249, [2013] 1 CMLR 4 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Associated Newspapers Ltd v HRH the Prince of Wales [2006] EWCA Civ 1776, [2007] 2 All ER 139, [2007] 3 WLR 222, [2008] Ch 57, [2008] EMLR 121, [2008] EMLR 4 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1776.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802, 805 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, [1947] 2 All ER 680, 63 TLR 623, 45 LGR 635 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1947/1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505, 512, 758, 927 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] EWCA Civ 1, [1947] 1 KB 223, [1947] 2 All ER 680 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1947/1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875 Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, [2004] 1 AC 546, [2003] 3 WLR 283, [2003] 3 All ER 1213, [2003] HRLR 28, [2003] UKHRR 919 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/37.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Attorney General (ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd) v Brotherton [1992] 1 AC 425, [1991] 3 WLR 1126, [1992] 1 All ER 230, [1993] Env LR 79, 90 LGR 15, (1992) 63 P & CR 411 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Attorney General of Ceylon v De Livera [1963] AC 103, [1962] 3 WLR 1413, [1962] 3 All ER 1066 (PC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1962/1962_27.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713 Attorney General of Ceylon v Silva [1953] AC 461, [1953] 2 WLR 1185, [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 563 (PC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1953/1953_15.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568, 859 Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Limited and Others [1994] 2 AC 238, [1994] 1 All ER 556, [1994] COD 275, [1994] 2 WLR 277,[1994] UKHL 1, (1994) 99 Cr App R 131 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1994/1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Attorney General v Barker (Worldwide Injunction) [1990] 3 All ER 257 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, [2000] 3 WLR 625, [2000] 4 All ER 385, [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 487, [2001] IRLR 36; affirming [1998] Ch 439, [1998] 2 WLR 805, [1998] 1 All ER 833 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2000/45.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587, 590, 593, 594 Attorney General v Clough [1963] 1 QB 773, [1963] 2 WLR 343, [1963] 1 All ER 420 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729 Attorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508, [1920] UKHL 1 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1920/1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479 Attorney General v Fraill [2011] EWHC 1629 (Admin), [2011] 2 Cr App R 21, [2012] Crim LR 286, [2011] ACD 8 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1570.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883 Attorney General v Greater Manchester Newspapers [2001] EWHC QB 451, [2001] TLR 668 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2001/451.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811, 831 Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 1) [1987] 1 WLR 1248, [1987] 3 All ER 316, [1989] 2 FSR 81 (HL) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1987/13.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820 Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2), Attorney General v Observer Ltd (No 2), Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109, [1988] 3 WLR 776, [1988] 3 All ER 545, [1989] 2 FSR 181 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1988/6.html . . 480, 492, 497, 531, 533, 572, 587, 588, 590, 593-595, 597, 623, 763, 797, 806, 807, 809, 811-815, 820 Attorney General v Hislop [1991] 1 QB 514, [1991] 2 WLR 219, [1991] 1 All

xxiv

TABLES OF CASES ER 911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883 Attorney General v Jonathan Cape [1976] QB 752, [1975] 3 WLR 606, [1975] 3 All ER 484 . 590, 748, 760, 762, 819 Attorney General v Mulholland; Attorney General v Foster [1963] 2 QB 477, [1963] 2 WLR 658, [1963] 1 All ER 767 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729 Attorney General v News Group Newspapers Limited [1989] QB 110, [1988] 3 WLR 163, [1988] 2 All ER 906, (1988) 87 Cr App R 323 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883 Attorney General v Newspaper Publishing plc [1988] Ch 333, [1987] 3 All ER 276 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590, 881 Attorney General v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] AC 436, [1957] 2 WLR 1, [1957] 1 All ER 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Attorney General v Punch Ltd [2002] UKHL 50, [2003] 1 AC 1046, [2003] 2 WLR 49, [2003] 1 All ER 289, [2003] EMLR 7, [2003] HRLR 14; reversing [2001] EWCA Civ 403, [2001] QB 1028, [2001] 2 WLR 1713, [2001] 2 All ER 655, [2001] EMLR 24 (CA) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/UKHL_2002_50.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590, 725, 820, 882 Attorney General v Scotcher [2005] UKHL 36, [2005] 1 WLR 1867, [2005] 3 All ER 1, [2005] 2 Cr App R 35, [2005] UKHRR 637, [2005] Crim LR 791 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/36.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883 Attorney General v Shayler [2006] EWHC 2285 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590, 590, 593, 594 Attorney General v Simpson [1901] 2 Ch 671 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Attorney General v Sport Newspaper [1991] 1 WLR 1194, [1992] 1 All ER 503, [1992] COD 9 . . . . . . . . . . 883 Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273, [1973] 3 WLR 298, [1973] 3 All ER 54 . . . . 524, 880 Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd, sub nom Attorney General v Observer and Guardian Newspapers, Attorney General v Newspaper Publishing plc, Attorney General v Growfar, Attorney General v Sunday Telegraph [1992] 1 AC 191, [1991] 2 WLR 994, [1991] 2 All ER 398 . . . . . . . . 590, 882 Attorney General’s Reference (No 5 of 2002) [2004] UKHL 40, [2005] 1 AC 167, [2004] 3 WLR 957, [2004] 4 All ER 901, [2005] 1 Cr App R 20, [2004] HRLR 37, [2005] Crim LR 220 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/40.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530 R (Axon) v Secretary of State for Health [2006] EWHC 37 (Admin), [2006] QB 539, [2006] 2 WLR 1130, [2006] 2 FLR 206, [2006] 1 FCR 175, [2006] HRLR 12, (2006) 88 BMLR 96, [2006] ACD 58, [2006] Fam Law 272 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/37.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 B (Disclosure to Other Parties), Re [2001] 2 FLR 1017, [2002] 2 FCR 32, [2001] Fam Law 798 . . . . . . . . . 94, 97 B v Auckland District Law Society, sub nom Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co v Auckland District Law Society [2003] UKPC 38, [2003] 2 AC 736, [2003] 3 WLR 859, [2004] 4 All ER 269 (PC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2003/38.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 B v Department of Social Development [2011] UKIPT 09/11/C

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIPTrib/2011/09_11.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578

R (B) v Stafford Combined Court, sub nom R (on the application of TB) v Stafford Crown Court [2006] EWHC 1645 (Admin), [2007] 1 All ER 102, [2006] 2 Cr App R 34, [2007] 1 WLR 1524 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1645.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Babar v Information Commissioner and British Council, Information Tribunal, 14 November 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0092.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366, 915 Lord Baker of Dorking v Information Commissioner and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Information Tribunal, 1 June 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0043.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 229, 230, 743 Baker v Information Commissioner and Cabinet Office, Information Tribunal, 28 February 2007 . 474, 611, 614, 618, 628, 633, 634 Baker v Information Commissioner and HMRC, First-tier Tribunal, 5 September 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441 Baker, Norman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHRR 1275 (Information Tribunal)

xxv

TABLES OF CASES www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2001/NSA2.html . . . 98, 161, 505, 512, 518, 569, 596, 621, 623, 624,

637, 927, 932, 938

Balfour v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [1994] 1 WLR 681, [1994] 2 All ER 588, [1994] ICR 277 . . . 348, 591, 592 Balston Ltd v Headline Filters Ltd (No 1) [1987] FSR 330 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805, 841 Bangar v Information Commissioner and Transport for London, Information Tribunal, 23 November 2009 . 537, 697, 699 Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV v Administrator of Hungarian Property [1954] AC 584, [1954] 1 All ER 969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Bankers Trust Co v Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274, [1980] 3 All ER 353 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336, 336, 337 Barber v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 11 November 2005 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2005/EA_2005_0004.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391, 394, 413, 916 Barclays Bank plc v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2009] EWHC 591 (QB) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/591.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588, 623, 812 Barrett v Information Commissioner and Office for National Statistics, Information Tribunal, 23 April 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0112.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523, 872 Barrymore, Michael v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] FSR 600 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 Bath and North East Somerset Council v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 5 October 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0045.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 BBC v Harper-Collins [2010] EWHC 2424 (Ch), [2011] EMLR 6 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/2424.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812 BBC v Information Commissioner [2009] EWHC 2348 (Admin), [2010] EMLR 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376, 929 BBC v Johns (Inspector of Taxes) [1965] Ch 32, [1964] 2 WLR 1071, [1964] 1 All ER 923, [1964] RVR 579 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1964/2.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568, 859 BBC v Sugar [2007] EWHC 905 (Admin), [2007] 4 All ER 518, [2007] 1 WLR 2583, [2007] ACD 87 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/905.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 903 BBC v Sugar [2008] EWCA Civ 191, [2008] 1 WLR 2289

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/191.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 908, 929

BBC, Petitioners (No 2), 2000 JC 521, 2000 SLT 860, 2000 SCCR 533, [2000] HRLR 423, 2000 GWD 15–584, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518, 597 BBC, Petitioners (No1) 2000 JC 419, 2000 SLT 845, 2000 GWD 11–383 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 Beam v Information Commissioner and Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Information Tribunal, 12 May 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0079.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502, 628, 916 Beasley v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Defence, First-tier Tribunal, 13 March 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/EA_2011_0184.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632, 636 Beaufort (Duke of) v John Aire & Co (1904) 20 TLR 602 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Beckham v Gibson, High Court, unreported, 29 April 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837 Beckles v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 7 September 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Bellamy v Information Commissioner and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Information Tribunal, 4 April 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0023.html . . . 101, 390, 474, 521-524, 527, 724, 726, 923, 925 Bellamy v Information Commissioner and Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, First-tier Tribunal, 23 February 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474, 494, 497, 523, 527, 529 Beloff v Pressdram Ltd [1973] 1 All ER 241 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531 Benford v Information Commissioner and DEFRA, Information Tribunal, 14 November 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0009.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143, 359, 684

xxvi

TABLES OF CASES Benson v Information Commissioner and University of Bristol, First-tier Tribunal, 10 November 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2011_0120.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545, 546 Berend v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Richmond, Information Tribunal, 12 July 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0049.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368, 393, 423, 455, 914 Berkeley Administration Inc v McClelland (Specific Discovery) [1990] FSR 381, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 Bermuda International Securities Ltd v KPMG [2001] EWCA Civ 269, [2001] CP Rep 73, [2001]CPLR 252, [2001] Lloyd’sRep PN 392 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/269.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Betts v Information Commission, Information Tribunal, 19 May 2008

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0109.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368, 450

Billings v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 6 February 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392, 923 Birkett v Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2011] EWCA Civ 1606, [2012] PTSR 1299 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1606.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447, 916, 924 Black Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591, [1975] 2 WLR 513, [1975] 1 All ER 810, [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 11 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1975/2.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Black v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 16 September 2011

www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i566/20120503%20Website%20Decisi on%20EA20110064.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Black v Sumitomo Corp [2001] EWCA Civ 1819, [2002] 1 WLR 1562, [2003] 3 All ER 643, [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 693, [2002] CPLR 148 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1819.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332, 333 Blake v Information Commissioner and Wiltshire County Council, Information Tribunal, 2 November 2009 . 777, 786-788 Bluck v Information Commissioner and Epsom & St Helier University NHS Trust, Information Tribunal, 17 September 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0090.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810, 811, 820, 876 Bluck v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 7 October 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Boaler, Re [1915] 1 KB 21 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494 Boardman v Phipps, sub nom Phipps v Boardman [1967] 2 AC 46, [1966] 3 WLR 1009, [1966] 3 All ER 721 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1966/2.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143, [1998] 2 WLR 639, [1998] 2 All ER 203, (1998) 162 JP 455, (1998) 10 Admin LR 321 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1998/13.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 Boddy v Information Commissioner and North Norfolk District Council, Information Tribunal, 23 June 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0074.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207, 225, 226 Bolkiah v KPMG [1998] UKHL 52, [1999] 2 AC 222, [1999] 1 All ER 517 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1998/52.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 Bolton v Information Commissioner and East Riding Yorkshire Council, First-tier Tribunal, 26 March 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0216.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787 Bombay Province v Bombay Municipal Corp [1947] AC 58, 62 TLR 643, [1947] LJR 380 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1946/1946_41.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 568, 859 Bousfield v Information Commissioner and Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, First-tier Tribunal, 10 January 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/EA_2012_0092.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698 Bousfield v Information Commissioner and Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, First-tier Tribunal, 11 October 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0113.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787 Bowbrick v Information Commissioner and Nottingham City Council, Information Tribunal, 28 September 2006

xxvii

TABLES OF CASES www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0006.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926

Bowden Consulting Ltd v Information Commissioner and Cabinet Office, Information Tribunal, 26 August 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0090.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521, 745 Bowman v Fels [2005] EWCA Civ 226, [2005] 1 WLR 3083

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/226.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720

Brackenborough v Spalding Urban DC [1942] AC 310 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Bradlaugh v Gossett (1883–84) LR 12 QBD 271 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 Breeze v Information Commissioner and Norfolk Constabulary, First-tier Tribunal, 2 March 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/EA_2011_0057.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685, 686 London Borough of Brent v N [2005] EWHC 1676, [2006] 1 FLR 310, (2006) 9 CCL Rep 14, [2005] Fam Law 855 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2005/1676.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Brett v Information Commissioner and Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Information Tribunal, 21 August 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0098.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143, 792 Brigden v Information Commissioner and North Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust, Information Tribunal, 5 April 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0034.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359, 922 Bristol City Council v Information Commissioner and Portland and Brunswick Square Association, First-tier Tribunal, 24 May 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0012.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 235 British Gas Trading Ltd v Data Protection Registrar, Data Protection Tribunal, 24 March 1998 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/1998/DA98_3492.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785 British Railways Board v Pickin, sub nom Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765, [1974] 2WLR 208, [1974] 1 All ER 609 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 British Steel Corp v Granada Television Ltd [1981] AC 1096, [1980] 3 WLR 774, [1981] 1 All ER 417 335, 520, 523, 531, 818 British Telecommunications plc v Sheridan [1990] IRLR 27 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1989/14.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929 British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection v Information Commissioner and Newcastle University, Firsttier Tribunal, 13 July 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/EA_2010_0064.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474, 767 British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection v Information Commissioner and Newcastle University, Firsttier Tribunal, 10 November 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0064.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362, 363 British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection v Secretary of State for Home Department [2008] EWHC 892 (QB) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/892.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798, 872, 874 British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 870, [2009] 1 All ER 44, [2009] 1 WLR 636 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/870.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798, 872, 874 Bromley v Information Commissioner and Environment Agency, Information Tribunal, 31 August 2007 . . . 205, 455, 915 Brown v Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother [2008] EWCA Civ 56, [2008] 1 WLR 2327 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/56.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Brown v Information Commissioner and Attorney-General, First-tier Tribunal, 26 August 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . 862 Brown v Stott, sub nom Stott (Procurator Fiscal) v Brown [2003] 1 AC 681, [2001] 2 WLR 817, [2001] 2 All ER 97, 2001 SC (PC) 43, 2001 SLT 59, 2001 SCCR 62, [2001] RTR 11, [2001] HRLR 9, [2001] UKHRR 333, 11 BHRC 179, (2001) 3 LGLR 24 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2000/D3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620

xxviii

TABLES OF CASES Browning v Information Commissioner and DBIS [2013] UKUT 236 (AAC) (20 May 2013) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/236.html . . . . . . . . 102, 817, 818, 846, 905, 908, 923, 928 Bruton v Information Commissioner and Duchy of Cornwall, First-tier Tribunal, 3 November 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0182.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 202, 204 Bryce v Information Commissioner and Cambridgeshire Constabulary, First-tier Tribunal, 8 June 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0083.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787 Bucks Free Press v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 18 January 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770, 772 Bunton v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 9 March 2012

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0058.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211, 466, 467

Burgess v Information Commissioner and Stafford Borough Council, Information Tribunal, 7 June 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0091.html . . 197, 216, 217, 225, 226, 494, 529, 725 Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Bank of England [1980] AC 1090, [1979] 3 WLR 722, [1979] 3 All ER 700 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1979/4.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742 Burns v Shuttlehurst Ltd, sub nom Burns v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp plc [1999] 1 WLR 1449, [1999] 2 All ER 27, [1999] PIQR P229 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332, 333 Burrells Wharf Freeholds Ltd v. Galliard Homes Ltd [1999] EWHC Technology 219, (1999) 65 Con LR 1, (2000) 2 TCLR 54 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/1999/219.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Burt v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 25 October 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622, 653, 660, 664 Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 75, [1980] 3 WLR 22, [1980] 2 All ER 608, 78 LGR 269, (1980) 40 P & CR 51, [1980] JPL 458 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1980/1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738 Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform v Information Commissioner and Peninsula Business Services, Information Tribunal, 28 April 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0087.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356, 701, 702 Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform v O’Brien and Information Commissioner [2009] EWHC 164 (QB) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/164.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526, 724, 745 Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform v Information Commissioner and Friends of the Earth, Information Tribunal, 29 April 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0072.html . . 143, 191, 197, 220, 230, 354, 472, 474, 496, 497, 552, 724, 733, 745, 746 Bustin v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 16 December 2005 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2005/EA_2005_0009.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101, 922 Buttes Gas & Oil Co v Hammer (No3), Occidental Petroleum Corp v Buttes Gas& Oil Co (No2) [1982] AC 888, [1981] 3 WLR 787; reversing [1981]QB 223, [1980] 3 WLR 668, [1980] 3 All ER 475 (CA) . . 647, 664, 721 C (Sexual Abuse: Disclosure to Landlords), Re [2002] EWHC 234, [2002] 2 FLR 375, [2002] 2 FCR 385, [2002] Fam Law 590 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner and Aitchison [2013] UKUT 0526 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/526.html . . . . 523, 525, 528, 529, 531, 726, 745, 748, 749, 924 Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 4 October 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0027.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190, 230 Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 13 September 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0031.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749 Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 16 August 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 21 October 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0030.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745, 759

xxix

TABLES OF CASES Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 4 June 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0080.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609, 610 Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 27 January 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0024.html . . . . . . . . . . . 523, 750, 758, 761, 762, 919 Cain v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Islington, First-tier Tribunal, 10 April 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0226.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 Calcraft v Guest [1898] 1 QB 759 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719, 720, 722, 723 Calland v Information Commissioner and Financial Services Authority, Information Tribunal, 8 August 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0136.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Camden Community Law Centre v Information Commissioner and Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Firsttier Tribunal, 8 March 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/EA_2011_0167.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618, 621, 625 London Borough of Camden v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 19 December 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0021.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777 London Borough of Camden v Information Commissioner and Voyias [2012] UKUT 190 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2012/190.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693 Camelot Group plc v Centaur Communications Ltd [1999] QB 124, [1998] 2 WLR 379, [1998] 1 All ER 251, [1998] IRLR 80, [1998] EMLR 1 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1997/2554.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 Cameron v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (formerly Railtrack plc) [2006] EWHC 1133 (QB), [2007] 1 WLR 163, [2007] 3 All ER 241, [2006] HRLR 31, [2007] UKHRR 245, [2006] PIQR P28 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/1133.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Campaign Against Arms Trade v BAE Systems plc [2007] EWHC 330 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/330.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 Campaign Against Arms Trade v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Defence, First-tier Tribunal, 22 November 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2011_0109.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662-664 Campaign against the Arms Trade v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice, Information Tribunal, 26 August 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2006_0040.html . . . 474, 524, 536, 652, 653, 658-660, 662664, 669, 848-851, 928 Campbell v Frisbee [2002] EWCA Civ 1374, [2003] ICR 141 (CA)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1374.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533, 805

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1373, [2003] QB 633, [2003] 1 All ER 224, [2003] EMLR 2, [2003] HRLR 2 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1373.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 147, 504, 596, 832, 886 Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd, sub nom Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457, [2004] 2 WLR 1232, [2004] 2 All ER 995, [2004] EMLR 15, [2004] HRLR 24, [2004] UKHRR 648, 16 BHRC 500 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/22.html . . . . . . 129, 816, 822-824, 826, 827, 831-833, 835, 837 Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2002] EWHC 499 (QB), [2002] EMLR 30 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/499.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788 Campsie v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 5 April 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0052.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394, 922 R (Capenhurst) v Leicester City Council [2004] EWHC 2124, (2004) 7 CCL Rep 557, [2004] ACD 93 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/2124.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Carins v Information Commissioner and DVLA, First-tier Tribunal, 2 September 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0102.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 Carlson v Townsend [2001] EWCA Civ 511, [2001] 1 WLR 2415, [2001] 3 All ER 663, [2001] CP Rep 86, [2001] CPLR 405, [2001] PIQR P24, (2001) 62 BMLR 50

xxx

TABLES OF CASES www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/511.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

Carlton Film Distributors Ltd v VCI plc [2003] EWHC 616, [2003] FSR 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 Carpenter v Information Commissioner and Stevenage Borough Council, Information Tribunal, 17 November 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0046.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214, 450 Carruthers v South Norfolk District Council [2006] EWHC 478 (Admin), [2007] RVR 203 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/478.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin), [2010] 2 WLR 1012, [2010] 2 FCR 309, [2010] 1 All ER 908, [2009] STI 3167, [2010] MHLR 35, [2010] PTSR 824, [2010] STC 493 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/3052.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906 Cart v The Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, [2012] 1 AC 663, [2012] Fam Law 398, [2011] AACR 38, [2011] 3 WLR 107, [2011] STI 1943, [2011] STC 1659, [2011] Imm AR 704, [2012] 1 FLR 997, [2011] PTSR 1053, [2011] MHLR 196, [2011] UKSC 28, [2011] 4 All ER 127 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/28.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932 CC v AB [2006] EWHC 3083 (QB), [2007] EMLR, [2007] Fam Law 591, [2007] 2 FLR 301 312www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/3083.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 Celador Productions Ltd v Melville, Boone v ITV Network, Baccini v Celador Productions Ltd [2004] EWHC 2362 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/2362.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802 Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 15 January 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0111.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust v Information Commissioner [2013] UKUT 0551 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/551.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179, 937 Chagos Refugees Group v Information Commissioner and Foreign & Commonwealth Office, First-tier Tribunal, 4 September 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0300.html . . . . 204, 363, 364, 447, 454, 455, 474, 915, 925 Chandler v Buffham [2002] EWHC 1426 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817 Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 763 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1962/2.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619, 645 Chantrey Martin & Co v Martin [1953] 2 QB 286, [1953] 3 WLR 459, [1953] 2 All ER 691, 46 R & IT 516, 38 ALR2d 663 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705 Chichester District Council v Information Commissioner and Friel, First-tier Tribunal, 16 March 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0153.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 227, 235 Chief Constable of Humberside and ors v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 21 July 2008 . . . 86 Chief Constable of Humberside Police & ors v Information Commissioner and Secretary of State for Home Department [2009] EWCA 1079, [2010] 1 WLR 1136 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1079.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86, 162, 782, 783 Church of Scientology of California v Department of Health and Social Security [1979] 1 WLR 723, [1979] 3 All ER 97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Civil Aviation Authority v Information Commissioner and Kirkaldie, Information Tribunal, 22 January 2010 . 98, 872 Clark (Inspector of Taxes) v Oceanic Contractors Inc [1983] 2 AC 130, [1983] 2 WLR 94, [1983] 1 All ER 133, [1983] STC 35, 56 TC 183, (1982) 13 ATR 901 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Cleveland CC v F [1995] 1 WLR 785, [1995] 2 All ER 236, [1995] 1 FLR 797, [1995] 3 FCR 174, 93 LGR 449, [1995] Fam Law 473 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743 Clibbery v Allan, sub nom Cliberry v Allan [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [2002] Fam 261, [2002] 2 WLR 1511, [2002] 1 All ER 865, [2002] 1 FLR 565, [2002] 1 FCR 385, [2002] UKHRR 697, [2002] Fam Law 260 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/45.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

xxxi

TABLES OF CASES Clyne v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Lambeth, First-tier Tribunal, 10 May 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0190.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204, 205, 428, 439 Cobain v Information Commissioner and Crown Prosecution Service, First-tier Tribunal, 8 February 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0112.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99, 685, 792 Coca-Cola Co v British Telecommunications plc [1999] ITCLR 365, [1999] FSR 518 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] FSR 415, [1969] RPC 41 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806 Coffin v Coffin (1808) 4 Mass 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713 Coggins v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 13 May 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0130.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 Collins Stewart Ltd v Financial Times Ltd (No2) [2005] EWHC 262, [2006] EMLR 5 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/262.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 Commission for Local Administration in England v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 11 March 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0087.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and anor v Times Newspapers Ltd and anor [2011] EWHC 2055 (QB) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1566.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Common Services Agency v Information Commissioner [2008] UKHL 47, [2008] 1 WLR 1550, [2008] 4 All ER 851, (2008) 103 BMLR 170, 2008 GWD 30-465, 2008 SC (HL) 184, 2008 SCLR 672, 2008 SLT 901 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/47.html . . 19, 140-142, 144, 145, 359, 360, 463, 465, 492, 494, 498, 499, 504, 522, 596, 777 Common Services Agency v Scottish Information Commissioner [2006] CSIH 58, 2007 SC 231 www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2006/CSIH_58.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390, 498 Department of Communities & Local Government v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 22 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474, 524 Department of Communities & Local Government v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 23 April 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0085.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Department of Communities & Local Government v Information Commissioner and WR [2012] UKUT 103 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2012/103.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225, 226, 717 Comotto v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 17 January 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0191.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778 Compagnie Financière du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QBD 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910, [1968] 2 WLR 998, [1968] 1 All ER 874 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1968/2.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591, 742, 743, 748 Coreck Maritime GmbH v Sevrybokholodflot, 1994 SLT 893 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654 R (Corner House Research) v Serious Fraud Office [2008] EWHC (Admin), [2009] 1 AC 756 (DC) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/714.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618, 621 R (Corner House Research) v Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60, [2009] 1 AC 756 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/60.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618, 620 Costello v Information Commissioner and Northamptonshire County Council, First-tier Tribunal, 3 July 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0291.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, [1984] 1 WLR 1174, [1984] 3 All ER 935, [1985] ICR 14, [1985] IRLR 28 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1983/6.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505, 512, 619, 645, 927 Coventry City Council v Lazarus (1996) 160 JP 188, [1996] CCLR 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 Craigdale Housing Association & ors v Scottish Information Commissioner [2010] CSIH 43, 2010 SLT 655 www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2010/2010CSIH43.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

xxxii

TABLES OF CASES Cranfield University v Information Commissioner and Peck, First-tier Tribunal, 5 March 2012

www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i711/EA-2011-0146_Decision_201203-05.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845

Cranleigh Precision Engineering Ltd v Bryant [1965] 1 WLR 1293, [1964] 3 All ER 289, [1966] RPC 81 . . . 841 Craven v Information and Department of Energy and Climate Change [2012] UKUT 442 (AAC) . . . . . 448, 449 Craven v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 13 May 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0002.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369, 463, 537, 873 Crawford v Information Commissioner and Department for Culture, Media and Sport, First-tier Tribunal, 10 July 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2012_0018.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724 Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44, [2005] 1 AC 253, [2004] 3 WLR 918, [2004] 4 All ER 617, [2005] EMLR 1, [2004] HRLR 39, [2004] UKHRR 1071, 17 BHRC 464; reversing [2003] EWCA Civ 103, [2003] Ch 650, [2003] 3 WLR 999, [2003] 2 All ER 318, [2003] EMLR 16 (CA) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/44.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537, 815, 816 Creation Records Ltd v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544 (Ch) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/1997/370.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810 Crédit Suisse v Allerdale Borough Council [1997] QB 306, [1996] 3 WLR 894 (CA); affirming [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Creekside Forum v Information Commissioner and Dept for Culture Media and Sport, Information Tribunal, 28 May 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0065.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 225, 226, 231 Crest Homes plc v Marks [1987] AC 829, [1987] 3 WLR 293, [1987] 2 All ER 1074, [1988] RPC 21 . . . . . . 342 Crown Prosecution Service v Information Commissioner, First-Tier Tribunal, 25 March 2010 . . . . . . . . 522, 530 CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1326 (QB)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1326.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832

CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1334 (QB)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1334.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832

Cubells v Information Commissioner and Wrightington, Wigan & Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, First-tier Tribunal, 30 May 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0183.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Department for Culture, Media and Sport v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 29 July 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0090.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474, 496, 524, 530, 532 Department for Culture, Media & Sport v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 22 February 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0038.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414, 521, 747, 914 Currie v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1921] 2 KB 332 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522 CVB v MGN Ltd [2012] EWHC 1148 (QB), [2012] EMLR 29

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1148.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

Re D [2008] UKHL 33, [2008] 1 WLR 1499, [2008] 4 All ER 992, [2008] NI 292, [2009] 1 FLR 700, [2009] Fam Law 192 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/33.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1151, [2004] QB 558, [2003] 3 FCR 1, [2003] Lloyd’s Rep Med 552, (2004) 76 BMLR 61, [2003] 4 All ER 796, [2003] Fam Law 816, [2003] HRLR 35, [2003] UKHRR 1200, [2003] 2 FLR 1166 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1151.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 R (D) v Secretary of State for Health, sub nom D v Secretary of State for Health [2006] EWCA Civ 989, [2006] Lloyd’s Rep Med 457 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/989.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 D v L [2003] EWCA Civ 1169, [2004] EMLR 1 (CA)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1169.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837

xxxiii

TABLES OF CASES D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) [1978] AC 171, [1977] 2 WLR 201, [1977] 1 All ER 589, 76 LGR 5 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1977/1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689 R (Paul Da Costa & Co) v Thames Magistrates Court [2002] EWHC 40, [2002] STC 267, [2002] BTC 5605, [2003] BVC 3, [2002] Crim LR 504, [2002] STI 112 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/40.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2008] EWHC 1784 (Ch) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/1784.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 Dainton v Information Commissioner and Lincolnshire County Council, Information Tribunal, 10 September 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0020.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Daltel Europe Ltd (In Liquidation) v Makki (Committal for Contempt) [2006] EWCA Civ 94, [2006] 1 WLR 2704 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/94.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881 R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, sub nom R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Daly [2001] UKHL 26, [2001] 2 AC 532, [2001] 2 WLR 1622, [2001] 3 All ER 433, [2001] HRLR 49, [2001] UKHRR 887, [2001] ACD 79 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/26.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505, 512, 720, 927 Re Dalrymple [1957] RPC 449 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Data Protection Registrar v Amnesty International [1995] Crim LR 633 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Davey v Shawcroft [1948] 1 All ER 827, 64 TLR 289, (1948) 112 JP 266, 46 LGR 272 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 David Kahn Inc v Conway Stewart & Co Ltd (No1) [1972] FSR 169, [1972] RPC 572 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Davies (Joy Rosalie) v Eli Lilly & Co (No1) [1987] 1 WLR 428, [1987] 1 All ER 801, [1987] ECC 340, (1987) 84 LSG 826 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 Davies v Davies (1887) LR 36 Ch D 359 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839 Davis v Information Commissioner and Health and Social Care Information Centre, First-tier Tribunal, 24 January 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0175.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 Davis v Information Commissioner and Olympic Delivery Authority, First-tier Tribunal, 4 January 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2011_0024.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789, 790 Davis v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 31 August 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 Dedalus Ltd v Information Commissioner and Arts Council of England, First-tier Tribunal, 21 May 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0001.html . . . . 414, 443, 444, 494, 496, 523, 524, 527 Ministry of Defence v Information Commissioner and Evans, Information Tribunal, 20 July 2007 . 745, 746, 758, 759, 763, 767, 770, 772 Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Information Commissioner and Peninsula Business Services Ltd, Information Tribunal, 28 April 2009

www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i305/BERR%20v%20IC%20&%20PBS%20% 28EA-2008-0087%29%20Decision%2028-04-09.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills v Information Commissioner and Browning, First-tier Tribunal, 22 September 2011

www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i575/20111130%20Decision%20&%20R uling%20EA20110044.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817, 818, 846

Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Co, sub nom Department of Economics, Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Co, Moscow City Council v Bankers Trust Co [2004] EWCA Civ 314, [2005] QB 207, [2004] 3 WLR 533, [2004] 4 All ER 746, [2004] 2 All ER (Comm) 193, [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 179, [2004] 1 CLC 1099, [2004] BLR 229 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/314.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530

xxxiv

TABLES OF CASES Department of Health v Information Commissioner and Healey, First-tier Tribunal, 5 April 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0286.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690, 733, 739, 744 Department of Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 20 September 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0073.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842, 843, 845 Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 10) [1991] 1 WLR 660, [1991] 2 All ER 908 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 7) [1990] 1 WLR 1156, [1990] 3 All ER 161 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 9), The Times, 9 November 1990 (CA); affirming [1991] 1 WLR 652, [1991] 2 All ER 901 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Derry City Council v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 11 December 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2006_0014.html . . 674, 678, 797, 798, 801, 809, 810, 817, 846 Derry v Handley (1867) 16 LT 263 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 Dey v Information Commissioner and Office for Fair Trading, Information Tribunal, 16 April 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0057.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873, 874 Digby-Cameron v Information Commissioner and Bedfordshire Police, Information Tribunal, 26 January 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0023.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684, 686, 789 Digby-Cameron v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 16 October 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0010.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 Digicel (St Lucia) Ltd v Cable & Wireless plc [2008] EWHC 2522 (Ch), [2009] 2 All ER 1094. www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/2522.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Doherty v Information Commissioner and HMRC, First-tier Tribunal, 25 January 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/EA_2011_0202.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 1) [2001] QB 967, [2001] 2 WLR 992, [2001] 2 All ER 289, [2001] EMLR 9, [2001] 1 FLR 982, [2002] 1 FCR 289, [2001] HRLR 26, [2001] UKHRR 223, 9 BHRC 543, [2001] FSR 40 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/353.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523, 533, 825 Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 6), sub nom Douglas v Hello! Ltd (Trial Action: Breach of Confidence) (No3) [2005] EWCA Civ 595, [2006] QB 125, [2005] 3 WLR 881, [2005] 4 All ER 128, [2005] EMLR 28, [2005] 2 FCR 487, [2005] HRLR 27 (CA); reversing in part [2003] EWHC 786 (Ch), [2003] 3 All ER 996, [2003] EMLR 31 (Ch) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/595.html . . . . 387, 806, 809, 824, 825, 828, 829, 831, 834, 835 Dowling v Information Commissioner and Police Service for Northern Ireland, First-tier Tribunal, 22 February 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/EA_2011_0118.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609 Downs v Information Commissioner and Health & Safety Executive, First-tier Tribunal, 1 May 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0205.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 DPP v Merriman, sub nom R v Merriman (John) [1973] AC 584, [1972] 3 WLR 545, [1972] 3 All ER 42, (1972) 56 Cr App R 766, [1972] Crim LR 784 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442 Dransfield v Information Commissioner and Devon County Council, First-tier Tribunal, 30 March 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0152.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Dransfield v Information Commissioner and Devon County Council [2013] UKUT 0550 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/550.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905, 929 Dudgeon v Information Commissioner and Police Service of Northern Ireland, First-tier Tribunal, 3 May 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/EA_2012_0113.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625, 634 Dudley v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 20 April 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0089.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455, 456 Dumfries and Galloway Council v Scottish Information Commissioner [2008] CSIH 12, 2008 SC 327 www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2008/CSIH_12.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873, 874

xxxv

TABLES OF CASES Dun v Information Commissioner and National Audit Office, First-tier Tribunal, 18 January 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0060.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787 Duncan v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd (Discovery), Craven v Cammell Laird & Co Ltd, The Thetis (Discovery) [1942] AC 624, [1942] 1 All ER 587, (1942) 73 Ll L Rep 109 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1942/3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592, 742 Dunford & Elliott Ltd v Johnson & Firth Brown Ltd [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 505, [1978] FSR 143 (CA) . . . 807, 809 Dunlop Slazenger International Ltd v Joe Bloggs Sports Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 901 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/901.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 Durant v Financial Services Authority (Disclosure) [2003] EWCA Civ 1746, [2004] FSR 28 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1746.html . . 129, 135, 138, 141, 142, 144, 155, 157, 174, 354, 435, 436, 504, 596, 737, 800 London Borough of Ealing v Race Relations Board [1972] AC 342, [1972] 2 WLR 71, [1972] 1 All ER 105, 70 LGR 219 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1971/3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 East Riding of Yorkshire Council v Information Commissioner and Stanley Davis Group Ltd, First-Tier Tribunal, 15 March 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0069.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199, 209, 532 Easter v Information Commissioner and New Forest National Park Authority, First-tier Tribunal, 14 May 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0092.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 198, 215, 524, 527 Edem v Information Commissioner and Financial Services Authority, First-tier Tribunal, 16 April 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0132.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778 Edmunds v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 20 May 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0094.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Department for Education and Skills v Information Commissioner and Evening Standard, Information Tribunal, 19 February 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0006.html . . 474, 494, 496, 497, 529, 738, 739, 743745, 748, 758, 924 Department for Education (Northern Ireland) v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 29 January 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/EA_2012_0135.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 Edward Rocknroll v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWHC 24 (Ch) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/24.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 Edwards v National Coal Board [1949] 1 KB 704 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 R (Ellis) v Chief Constable of Essex [2003] EWHC 1321, [2003] 2 FLR 566, [2003] ACD 85, [2003] Fam Law 726 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/1321.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 England and London Borough of Bexley v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 10 May 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0060.html . . 140, 142, 544, 692, 693, 785, 787, 790, 916 Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs v Information Commissioner and Portman, First-tier Tribunal, 13 November 2012

www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i940/EA-2012-0105_2012-11-13.pdf

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223, 228, 237, 494, 496, 521, 523, 524, 527, 717, 725, 727

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs v Information Commissioner and Birkett [2011] UKUT 39 (AAC), [2011] UKUT 17 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2011/39.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199, 219, 239, 924 Erven Warnink BV v J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd (No 1) [1979] AC 731, [1979] 3 WLR 68, [1979] 2 All ER 927, [1979] FSR 397, [1980] RPC 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 Etchells v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 31 March 2010

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0109.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Evans v Information Commissioner and Department of Business, Industry & Science [2012] UKUT 313

xxxvi

TABLES OF CASES (AAC)

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2012/313.html . . . . . . . . . . . . 496, 803, 857, 858, 900, 919, 924

R (Evans) v Attorney General [2013] EWHC 1960 (Admin)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/1960.html . . . . . 218, 501, 512, 803, 858, 919, 931, 932

Evans v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Defence, Information Tribunal, 23 June 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2006_0064.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789, 790 Evans v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Defence, Information Tribunal, 26 October 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0064.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392, 474, 537, 759 Re Ewing [2002] EWHC 3169

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/3169.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161, 907, 938

Exchange Telegraph Co Ltd v Central News Ltd [1897] 2 Ch 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812 Exeter City Council v Information Commissioner and Guagliardo, First-tier Tribunal, 24 September 2012 . . 143, 786 Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59, [2008] 1 WLR 1099 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/59.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341, 722 Export Credit Guarantee Department v Information Commissioner and Campaign Against Arms Trade, Information Tribunal, 21 October 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496, 520-523, 527, 530, 745, 758 Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), [2008] Env LR 40, [2008] JPL 1813 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/638.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190, 229, 494, 525, 731, 745 Export Credits Guarantee Department v Information Commissioner and Corner House, Information Tribunal, 11 August 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0071.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 220, 224 Ezsias v Welsh Ministers [2007] EWHC B15 (QB)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/B15.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141, 157, 174

Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler, Fowler v Faccenda Chicken Ltd [1987] Ch 117, [1986] 3 WLR 288, [1986] 1 All ER 617, [1986] ICR 297, [1986] IRLR 69, [1986] FSR 291 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809, 840-842 Farmer v Cotton’s Trustees [1915] AC 922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522 R (Farrakhan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, sub nom Farrakhan v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Secretary of State for the Home Department v Farrakhan [2002] EWCA Civ 606, [2002] QB 1391, [2002] 3 WLR 481, [2002] 4 All ER 289, [2002] UKHRR 734, 12 BHRC 497, [2002] Imm AR 447, [2002] INLR 257, [2002] ACD 76 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/606.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 Fenney v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 26 June 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_001.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778 Ferdinand v MGN Ltd [2011] EWHC 2454 (QB)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2454.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816, 828, 835, 838

Financial Services Authority v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 16 February 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0061.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699 Financial Services Authority v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 13 October 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0093.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Financial Services Authority v Information Commissioner [2009] EWHC 1548 (Admin), [2009] Bus LR 1287, [2009] ACD 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Financial Services Authority v Information Commissioner and Riverstone Managing Agency Ltd, Information Tribunal, 25 November 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921 First Gulf Bank v Wachovia Bank [2005] EWHC 2827

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2005/2827.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

Fisher v Information Commissioner and Department for Work and Pensions, First-tier Tribunal, 14 March 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0206.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724

xxxvii

TABLES OF CASES Fisher v Information Commissioner and Department of Work & Pensions, FTT, 29 July 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0044.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725 FL v Registrar General [2010] EWHC 3520 (Fam), [2011] 2 FLR 630, [2011] 2 FCR 229 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2010/3520.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2009] EWHC 411 (QB), [2009] EMLR 18 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/411.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Forbes v Smith [1998] 1 All ER 973, [1998] 1 FLR 835, [1998] 2 FCR 342, [1998] FSR 295, [1998] Fam Law 256 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Foreign & Commonwealth Office v Information Commissioner and Plowden [2013] UKUT 275 (AAC) (15 June 2013) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/275.html . . . . . . . . . . . . 533, 657, 658, 739, 851, 928, 929 Foreign and Commonwealth Office v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 29 April 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0092.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 Foreign and Commonwealth Office v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 21 September 2011

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/[2011]_UKFTT_EA20110011_(GRC)_2011-09-21. html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697

Foreign and Commonwealth Office v Information Commissioner and Friends of the Earth, Information Tribunal, 29 June 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0065.html . . 199, 220, 224, 356, 531, 652, 654, 657, 747 Foreign and Commonwealth Office v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 22 January 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0047.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531, 758 Formica Ltd v Export Credits Guarantee Department [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 692 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705 Fort Frances Pulp and Power Co Ltd v Manitoba Free Press Co Ltd [1923] AC 695 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Fortune v Information Commissioner and National Patient Safety Agency, Information Tribunal, 16 April 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0004.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450, 455 Fox v Government of Newfoundland [1898] AC 667 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Francis v Information Commissioner and General Medical Council, Information Tribunal, 15 January 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0028.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 Francis v Information Commissioner and South Essex Partnership Foundation NHS Trust, Information Tribunal, 21 July 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0091.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364, 455, 456, 725 Francome v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 892, [1984] 2 All ER 408 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523, 597 Frankson v Secretary of State for the Home Department, sub nom Rowe v Fryers, Johns v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 655, [2003] 1 WLR 1952 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/655.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Franlison v Home Office [2003] EWCA Civ 665, [2003] 1 WLR 1952 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Fraser v Evans [1969] 1 QB 349 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816 Freddie Scappaticci’s Application, Re [2003] NIQB 56

www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2003/56.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621, 632

Freeborn v Information Commissioner and Sussex Police, Information Tribunal, 5 August 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_118.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778 Freebury v Information Commissioner and Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, Information Tribunal, 5 October 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356, 686 Freeze v Information Commissioner and DEFRA, First-tier Tribunal, 8 March 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0112.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 232 Friends of the Earth v Information Commission and Export Credit Guarantee Department, Information Tribunal, 20 August 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0073.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228-230, 494, 543

xxxviii

TABLES OF CASES Friends of the Earth v Information Commissioner and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 4 April 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0039.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171, 180, 873 FSS Travel & Leisure Systems Ltd v Johnson [1998] IRLR 382, [1999] ITCLR 218, [1999] FSR 505 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1997/2759.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 Fulham Leisure Holdings Ltd v Nicholson Graham & Jones [2006] EWHC 158, [2006] 2 All ER 599, [2006] PNLR 23 (Ch) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/158.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 R (Furness) v Environment Agency [2001] EWHC (Admin) 1058, [2002] Env LR 26 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/1058.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89, 97 R (G) v London Borough of Barnet [2004] 1 All ER 97, [2003] NPC 123, [2003] BLGR 569, [2004] 1 FLR 454, [2004] Fam Law 21, [2004] HLR 10, (2003) 6 CCL Rep 500, [2003] 3 WLR 1194, [2003] 3 FCR 419, [2004] 2 AC 208, [2004] HRLR 4, [2003] UKHL 57 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/57.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Gallagher v Lynn, sub nom R v Gallagher [1937] AC 863 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 Gallay’s Application, Re [1959] RPC 141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Galloway v Information Commissioner and NHS, Information Tribunal, 20 March 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0036.html . . 496, 520, 529, 530, 537, 698, 699, 763 Galoo Ltd v Bright Grahame Murray [1994] 1 WLR 1360, [1995] 1 All ER 16, [1994] BCC 319 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1993/3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767 Garrard v Information Commissioner and Home Office, First-tier Tribunal, 6 September 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0107.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391, 455 Gartside v Outram (1857) 26 LJ Ch (NS) 113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815 Gaudiya Mission v Brahmachary [1998] Ch 341, [1998] 2 WLR 175, [1997] 4 All ER 957 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1997/2239.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp Ltd v Tanter, The Zephyr [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 529 (CA); reversing in part [1984] 1 WLR 100, [1984] 1 All ER 35, [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 General Mediterranean Holdings SA v Patel [2000] 1 WLR 272

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/1999/832.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719, 720

George Doland Ltd v Blackburn Robson Coates & Co [1972] 1 WLR 1338, [1972] 3 All ER 959 . . . . . . . . . . 722 Gibbon v Pease [1905] 1 KB 810 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705 Gibbon v Rugby Borough Council UKIPT 06/31/CH

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIPTrib/2008/06_31.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578

Gibson v Information Commissioner and Craven District Council, First-tier Tribunal, 22 February 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0095.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788 Gibson v Information Commissioner, First-Tier Tribunal, 22 January 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787 Gilbert v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 21 March 2011

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0190.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786

Gilby v Information Commissioner and Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Information Tribunal, 22 October 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0071.html . . 536, 540, 653, 658, 660, 662-664, 849851 Gillingham v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 26 September 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0028.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725 Gio Personal Investment Services Ltd v Liverpool and London Steamship Protection & Indemnity Association Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Glasgow City Council & anor v Scottish Information Commissioner [2009] CSIH 73 www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2009/2009CSIH73.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354, 356, 466, 544-546 Glasgow Corp v Central Land Board, 1956 SC (HL) 1, 1956 SLT 41, [1956] JPL 442 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1955/1956_SC_HL_1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743

xxxix

TABLES OF CASES Goddard v Nationwide Building Society [1987] QB 670 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 Gordon v Information Commissioner and Cabinet Office, First-tier Tribunal, 7 December 2012 . . . . . . . 712, 724 Gore v Information Commissioner and Local Government Ombudsman, First-tier Tribunal, 23 March 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0254.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227, 873 Gosling v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Data Protection Tribunal, 1 August 2003 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2003/NSA4.html . . . 98, 161, 505, 512, 518, 569, 596, 621, 623, 624, 637, 638 Gotha City v Sotheby’s (No 1) [1998] 1 WLR 114 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Gowers v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Camden, Information Tribunal, 13 May 2008 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2005/2827.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369, 450 Gransden v Secretary of State for the Environment (1985) P & CR 86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 Grant v Google [2005] EWHC 3444 (Ch)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/3444.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

Great Atlantic Insurance Co v Home Insurance Co, sub nom Great Atlantic Insurance Co v American Foreign Insurance Association, Great Atlantic Insurance Co v CE Heath & Co (International), Great Atlantic Insurance Co v Frank Elger & Co [1981] 1 WLR 529, [1981] 2 All ER 485, [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721, 722 Green Corns Ltd v Claverley Group Ltd [2005] EWHC 958 (QB), [2005] EMLR 31, [2005] 2 FCR 309 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/958.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831, 832 R (Green) v Police Complaints Authority [2004] UKHL 6, [2004] 1 WLR 725, [2004] 2 All ER 209, [2004] HRLR 19, [2004] UKHRR 939 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/6.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387, 685, 689, 691, 695 Greenwood v Information Commissioner and Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council, First-tier Tribunal, 14 September 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0007.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 Greenwood v Information Commissioner and Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council, First-tier Tribunal, 17 February 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0131.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] UKHL 40, [2002] 1 WLR 3024, HL, reversing [2001] EWCA Civ 33, [2001] 2 All ER 437, [2001] EMLR 18 (CA) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/40.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817 Grosvenor Hotel, London (No 2), Re [1965] Ch 1210, [1964] 3 WLR 992, [1964] 3 All ER 354 . . . . . . . . . . . 743 Grow with Us Ltd v Green Thumb (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1201 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1201.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785 Guardian News & Media Ltd v Information Commissioner and MoJ, Information Tribunal, 10 June 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0084.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142, 695, 887 R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618, [2012] 3 All ER 551, [2012] 3 WLR 1343, [2012] CP Rep 30, [2012] EMLR 22 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/420.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99, 815 Guardian Newspapers Limited v Information Commissioner and Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police, Information Tribunal, 5 April 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0017.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 686 Guardian Newspapers Ltd and Brooke v Information Commissioner and British Broadcasting Corporation, Information Tribunal, 8 January 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0013.html . . 492, 494, 523, 525, 530, 537, 538, 541, 742, 743, 755, 757-759, 763, 923-926 Guardian Newspapers Ltd v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 8 November 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0070.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787 Gubay v Kingston [1984] 1 WLR 163 (HL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

xl

TABLES OF CASES Gunn-Russo v Nugent Care Society, sub nom R (on the application of Gunn-Russo) v Nugent Care Society [2001] EWHC Admin 566, [2002] 1 FLR 1, [2001] UKHRR 1320, [2001] ACD 86, [2002] Fam Law 92 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/566.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Gwelhayl Ltd v Midas Construction Ltd [2008] EWHC 2316 (TCC), 123 Con LR 91 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2008/2316.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof), Re, sub nom H and R (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof), Re, H (Minors) (Child Abuse: Threshold Conditions), Re [1996] AC 563, [1996] 2 WLR 8, [1996] 1 All ER 1, [1996] 1 FLR 80, [1996] 1 FCR 509, [1996] Fam Law 74 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1995/16.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497, 722 R (Halebank Parish Council) v Halton Borough Council (unreported, 30 April 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/333.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 R (Hallinan Blackburn-Gittings & Nott (A Firm)) v Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court [2004] EWHC 2726, [2005] 1 WLR 766 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/2726.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 Hamilton v Al-Fayed (No1) [2001] 1 AC 395, [2000] 2 WLR 609, [2000] 2 All ER 224, [2000] EMLR 531 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2000/18.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515, 711, 713 Hampshire Constabulary v Information Commissioner and Independent Police Support Group, First-tier Tribunal, 13 Dcember 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2011_0114.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 Hands v Morrison Construction Services Ltd [2006] EWHC 2018 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332-334, 339 Harben Pumps (Scotland) Ltd v Lafferty, 1989 SLT 752, [1989] SLT 752 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842 Harcup v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 5 February 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0058.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142, 143 Harding v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Camden, First-tier Tribunal, 17 October 2011

www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i644/2011-10-17_UKFTT_GRC_EA2011 0110.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215, 443

Hargrave v Information Commissioner and National Archives, Information Tribunal, 3 December 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0041.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691 Harmony Shipping v Saudi Europe Line [1979] 1 WLR 1380 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 Harper v Information Commissioner and Royal Mail Group plc, Information Tribunal, 15 November 2005 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2005/EA_2005_0001.html . . . . . . 134, 361, 365, 428, 914, 918, 922 Harrington v North London Polytechnic [1984] 1 WLR 1293, [1984] 3 All ER 666 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Harris v Earl of Chesterfield, sub nom Lord Chesterfield v Harris [1911] AC 623 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Harrods Ltd v Times Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 294 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/294.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Harrow Community Support Ltd v Secretary of State for Defence [2012] EWHC 1921 (Admin) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1921.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 Hartles v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 27 February 2013

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0198.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225, 717

Hays Specialist Recruitment (Holdings) Ltd v Ions [2008] EWHC 745 (Ch), [2008] IRLR 908 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/745.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Department of Health v Information Commission, Information Tribunal, 18 November 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0018.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801, 873 Department of Health v Information Commissioner and Pro-Life Alliance, Information Tribunal, 15 October 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788, 791, 872 R (Department of Health) v Information Commissioner [2011] EWHC 1430 (Admin), [2011] ACD 97, [2011] Med LR 363 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140, 144, 145

xli

TABLES OF CASES Health Professions Council v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 14 March 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0116.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916, 918 Heath v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 16 September 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790 R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2002] EWCA Civ 366, [2002] 2 All ER 936, [2002] HRLR 30, [2002] UKHRR 883, [2002] HLR 49,(2003) 69 BMLR 22, [2002] ACD 43 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/366.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 201 Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [1995] 1 WLR 804, [1995] 4 All ER 473 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808 Hemsley v Information Commissioner and Chief Constable of Northamptonshire, Information Tribunal, 10 April 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0026.html . . . 522, 532, 536, 692, 767, 769, 772, 923 Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 Hereford and Worcester County Council [1986] ICR 471, [1986] IRLR 168 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929 Heydon’s case [1584] EWHC Exch J36, (1584) 76 ER 637, Pasch 26 Eliz www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Exch/1584/J36.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Higginson v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 2 May 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0008.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Higher Education Funding Council for England v Information Commissioner & anor, Information Tribunal, 13 January 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798, 802, 803 Re Highgrade Traders Ltd [1984] BCLC 151 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 Hilton v Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Information Tribunal, 28 June 2005 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2005/NSA1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161, 505, 518, 569, 623, 624, 638 Hipwood v Gloucester HA [1995] ICR 999, [1995] PIQR P447, [1995] 6 Med LR 187 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Hitchens v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Information Tribunal, 4 August 2003 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2003/NSA5.html . . . . 98, 161, 505, 518, 569, 616, 623, 624, 637, 638 HM Advocate v Airs (Gordon), 1975 JC 64, 1975 SLT 177 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729 HM Treasury v Information Commissioner [2009] EWHC 1811 (Admin), [2010] QB 563, [2009] ACD 73, [2010] 2 WLR 931, [2010] 2 All ER 55, [2010] 2 WLR 931 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/1811.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525, 526, 749, 750, 929 HM Treasury v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 7 November 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0001.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744, 745 HM Treasury v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 15 May 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0054.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750 HMRC v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 10 March 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0067.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697, 698, 873 Hodgson v Imperial Tobacco Ltd (No1) [1998] 1 WLR 1056, [1998] 2 All ER 673, [1998] 1 Costs LR 14, [1999] PIQR Q1, (1998) 41 BMLR 1 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/224.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Hogan v Information Commissioner and Oxford City Council, Information Tribunal, 17 October 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0030.html . . 391, 394, 458, 460, 461, 496, 521, 522, 527-529, 532, 533, 536, 537, 540, 541, 691-693, 911, 915, 922, 923 Holland v Information Commissioner and University of East Anglia, First-tier Tribunal, 29 April 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0193.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204, 454 R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Information Tribunal [2006] EWHC 2958 (Admin), [2007] 2 All ER 703, [2007] ACD 45 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/2958.html 162, 176, 504, 512, 596, 630, 898, 917, 936, 938, 939 Secretary of State for Home Department v MB [2006] EWCA Civ 1140, [2007] QB 415, [2006] UKHRR 1133, [2006] 3 WLR 839, [2006] HRLR 37 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1140.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621

xlii

TABLES OF CASES Secretary of State for Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46, [2008] 1 AC 440, [2007] UKHL 46 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/46.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 Secretary of State for Home Department v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 20 November 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0062.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532, 758 Secretary of State for Home Department v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 15 August 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0027.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47, [2003] 1 AC 153, [2001] 3 WLR 877, [2002] 1 All ER 122, 11 BHRC 413, [2002] Imm AR 98, [2002] INLR 92, [2002] ACD 6 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/47.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497, 505, 618-620, 622, 642, 647 Secretary of State Home Department v F [2009] UKHL 28, [2010] 2 AC 269, [2009] HRLR 26, [2009] 3 All ER 643, [2009] UKHRR 1177, [2009] UKHL 28, [2009] 3 WLR 74, (2009) 26 BHRC 738 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/28.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 Home Office and Ministry of Justice v Information Commissioner [2009] EWHC 1611 (Admin) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/1611.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497, 521, 525, 527, 728 Home Office v Harman, sub nom Harman v Home Office [1983] 1 AC 280, [1982] 2 WLR 338, [1982] 1 All ER 532 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342, 882 Home Office v Information Commissioner and Central London County Court, First-tier Tribunal, 27 March 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0203.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 Home Office v Information Commissioner and Cobain, First-tier Tribunal, 30 January 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 Home Office v Information Commissioner and Cobain, First-tier Tribunal, 30 January 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/EA_2012_0129.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359, 360 Home Office v Information Commissioner and John O, First-tier Tribunal, 10 April 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . 653, 663 Home Office v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 8 June 2010

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0011.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497

Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v Information Commissioner and Brooke, Leapman, UngoedThomas [2008] EWHC 1084 (Admin), [2009] 3 All ER 403 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1084.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143, 513, 533, 789 Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v Information Commissioner and Norman Baker, Information Tribunal, 16 January 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_0006_0015.html . . 143, 780, 782, 783, 785-787, 789, 790, 924 House of Commons v Information Commissioner and Leapman, Brooke and Thomas, Information Tribunal, 26 February 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0060.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143, 790 House of Commons v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 9 August 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0074.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370, 371 R (Howard) v Secretary of State for Health [2002] EWHC 396, [2003] QB 803 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/396.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98, 99, 518, 597 Howard v Harris (1884) 1 Cab & El 253 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 Howe v David Brown Tractors (Retail) Ltd [1991] 4 All ER 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Howgate v Bagnall, sub nom Howgate v Attorney General [1951] 1 KB 265, [1950] 2 All ER 1104, 66 TLR (Pt 2) 997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Howglen Ltd (Application for Disclosure), Re [2001] 1 All ER 376, [2001] BCC 245, [2001] 2 BCLC 695 . . . 341 Hoyte v Information Commissioner and Civil Aviation Authority, Information Tribunal, 5 March 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0101.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872, 875 HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd, sub nom Associated Newspapers Ltd v HRH Prince of Wales [2006] EWCA Civ 1776, [2007] 2 All ER 139 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1776.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802, 805 R (HTV Ltd) v Bristol City Council [2004] 1 WLR 2717 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

xliii

TABLES OF CASES Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11, [2007] 2 AC 167, 24 BHRC 74, [2007] 4 All ER 15, [2007] INLR 314, [2007] 1 FLR 2021, [2007] 2 WLR 581, [2007] UKHRR 759, [2007] Imm AR 571, [2007] Fam Law 587, [2007] HRLR 22 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/11.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 Hudson’s Bay Co v Maclay (1920) 36 TLR 469 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Hughes v Carratu International plc [2006] EWHC 1791 (QB)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/1791.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

R (Hume) v Londonderry Justices [1972] NI 91 (DC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd v O2 (UK) Ltd [2008] EWHC 50 (Comm) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2008/50.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland [2001] Ch 143, [2000] 3 WLR 215, [2000] ECDR 275, [2000] EMLR 363, [2000] RPC 604 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/37.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520, 523, 533, 813 Imerman v Tchenguiz [2010] EWCA Civ 908, [2011] Fam 116, [2010] 2 FLR 814, [2011] 2 WLR 592 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/908.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821 Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Lord Advocate [2012] UKSC 61, 2013 SLT 2, 2013 SCLR 121 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/61.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority v Information Commissioner and Leapman, First-tier Tribunal, 29 April 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/EA_2012_0242.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359, 465, 466, 468 Independent Police Complaints Commission v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 29 March 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0222.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443, 447 Industrial Development Consultants Ltd v Cooley [1972] 1 WLR 443, [1972] 2 All ER 162 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590 Information Commissioner v Devon County Council and Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/440.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448, 449 Information Commissioner v Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and Gaskell [2011] UKUT 296 (AAC) www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j3333/GIA%203016%202010-01.doc . . . 474, 475, 524, 876, 916 Information Commissioner v London Borough of Islington [2002] EWHC 1036, [2003] BLGR 38, [2002] RVR 316 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/1036.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Information Commissioner v Magherafelt District Council [2012] UKUT 263 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2012/263.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145, 460 Ingle v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 29 June 2007

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0023.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

Initial Services Ltd v Putterill [1968] 1 QB 396 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597, 815, 816 Inland Revenue Commissioners v Herbert, sub nom Herbert’s Trustees v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Herbert v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1913] AC 326, 1913 SC (HL) 34, 1913 1 SLT 437 . . . . . . . . 243 Inland Revenue Commissioners v McGuckian [1997] 1 WLR 991, [1997] 3 All ER 817, [1997] UKHL 22 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1997/22.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Innes v Information Commissioner and Buckinghamshire County Council, First-tier Tribunal, 26 August 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0164.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392, 466, 467 Innes v Information Commissioner [2013] UKUT 0188 (AAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 Innes v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 5 May 2011

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2009_0064.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392

Innes v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 27 October 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice, First-tier Tribunal, 8 December 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2011_0148.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372

xliv

TABLES OF CASES Institute of Cricket Umpiring and Scoring v Information Commissioner and BIS and Ray [2011] UKUT 205 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2011/205.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904 Interbrew SA v Financial Times Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 274, [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 229, [2002] EMLR 24 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/274.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 International Transport Roth GmbH v Secretary of State for the Home Department, sub nom R (on the application of International Transport Roth GmbH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Secretary of State for the Home Department v International Transport Roth GmbH [2002] EWCA Civ 158, [2003] QB 728, [2002] 3 WLR 344, [2002] 1 CMLR 52, [2002] Eu LR 74, [2002] HRLR 31, [2002] UKHRR 479, [2002] ACD 57 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/158.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 Island Export Finance Ltd v Umunna [1986] BCLC 460 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590 Iveagh v Martin [1961] 1 QB 232 at 238 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Jahromi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1996] Imm AR 20 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 James v Information Commissioner and Department of Trade & Industry, Information Tribunal, 25 September 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_003.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439, 915 Jefferys v Boosey (1854) 4 HL Cas 815 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Jenkins v Attorney General (1971) 115 SJ 674 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478 Jenkins v Information Commissioner and DEFRA, Information Tribunal, 2 November 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0067.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 Jockey Club v Buffham [2002] EWHC 1866 (QB), [2003] QB 462, [2003] EMLR 5 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/1866.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817, 882 John Connor Press Associates Ltd v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 25 January 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2006_0005.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481, 537, 540, 691, 844 John Robinson & Co v King, The [1921] 3 KB 183, (1921) 7 Ll L Rep 163 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 John v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWHC 1611, [2006] EMLR 27 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/1611.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 Johnson v Information Commissioner and Secretary of State for Justice, Information Tribunal, 13 July 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0085.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359, 439 Johnson v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 28 April 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0013.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394, 429, 922 Johnson v London Borough of Havering [2006] EWHC 1714 (Admin); appeal at [2007] 2 WLR 1097, [2007] BLGR 241, [2007] EWCA Civ 26, [2007] EWCA Civ 27, [2007] HRLR 15 (CA); on further appeal at [2007] UKHL 27, [2007] 3 WLR 112, [2007] 3 All ER 957 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1714.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Johnson v Medical Defence Union (No 2) [2006] EWHC (Ch) 321, (2006) 89 BMLR 43 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/321.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd [2004] EWHC 2509, [2005] 1 WLR 750, [2005] 1 All ER 87, [2005] Info TLR 119, [2005] FSR 28 (Ch) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/2509.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd [2004] EWHC 347 (Ch)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/347.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134, 141, 149, 155

Johnson v Medical Defence Union [2007] EWCA Civ 262, [2007] 3 CMLR 9, (2007) 96 BMLR 99 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/262.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 133, 134, 136, 147 Johnston v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 19 October 2011

www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i602/%5B2011%5D_UKFTT%28GRC%29_E A20110055_2011-10-19.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800

Jones v Information Commissioner and Environment Agency, First-tier Tribunal, 27 April 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0156.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199, 235, 853

xlv

TABLES OF CASES Ministry of Justice v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 6 August 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0016.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918 Kalman v Information Commissioner and Department for Transport, First-tier Tribunal, 6 July 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0111.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618, 622, 625 Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council [2006] UKHL 10, [2006] 2 AC 465 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/10.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821 Kearsley v Klarfeld, sub nom Kearsley v Klarfield [2005] EWCA Civ 1510, [2006] 2 All ER 303, [2006] CP Rep 20, [2006] RTR 34, [2006] PIQR P13 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1510.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 Keely v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 19 May 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0113.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684 Keene v Information Commissioner and Central Office of Information, Information Tribunal, 14 September 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 Keiller v Information Commissioner and University of East Anglia, First-tier Tribunal, 18 January 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0152.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205, 428 Kelway v Information Commissioner and Northumbria Police, Information Tribunal, 14 April 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0037_2.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142, 684, 686, 778 R (Kemp) v Denbighshire Local Health Board [2006] EWHC 181 (Admin), [2006] 3 All ER 141, (2006) 9 CCL Rep 354, [2006] ACD 63, [2007] 1 WLR 639 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/181.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Kennedy v Charity Commission [2012] EWCA Civ 317, [2012] 1 WLR 3524, [2012] EMLR 20 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/317.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100, 597 Kennedy v Charity Commission, FTT, 18 November 2011

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/[2011]_UKFTT(GRC)_EA20080083_2011-11-18.h tml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Kennedy v Information Commissioner and Charity Commission, Information Tribunal, 14 June 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0083.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702, 703 Kennedy v Information Commissioner and Charity Commission [2011] EWCA Civ 367, [2012] 1 WLR 3524 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/367.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702, 703 Kennedy v Information Commissioner and Charity Commission [2010] EWHC 475, [2010] 1 WLR 1489 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/475.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702, 703 R (Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2004] EWCA Civ 1494, [2005] 1 WLR 1302, [2005] 1 All ER 449 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1494.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 Kessler v Information Commissioner and HMRC, Information Tribunal, 29 November 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0043.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725-727 Keston Ramblers Association v Information Commissioner and LB of Bromley, Information Tribunal, 26 October 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2005_0024.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Khashoggi v Smith (1980) 124 SJ 14 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810 Kikugawa v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice, First-tier Tribunal, 20 May 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0267.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757 King v Information Commissioner and Ceredigion County Council, First-tier Tribunal, 29 April 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0202.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 King v Information Commissioner and Department for Work & Pensions, Information Tribunal, 20 March 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0085.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692, 916, 918 Kirkaldie v Information Commissioner and Thanet District Council, Information Tribunal, 4 July 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_001.html . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 200, 216, 226, 717, 721

xlvi

TABLES OF CASES Kirkhope v Information Commissioner and National Archives, First-tier Tribunal, 15 January 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2011_0185.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143, 788 Kirklees Council v Information Commissioner and PALI [2011] UKUT 104 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2011/104.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199, 209 Kitchener v Information Commissioner and Derby City Council, Information Tribunal, 20 December 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2006_0044.html . . . . . . 101, 496, 530, 533, 723, 726, 727 Konigsberg (A Bankrupt), Re [1989] 1 WLR 1257, [1989] 3 All ER 289, [1990] Fam Law 94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 Krafft v London Borough of Camden (2001) 3 LGLR 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802 Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (Disclosure: Fraud Exception) [2005] EWCA Civ 286, [2005] 1 WLR 2734 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/286.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 L (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Disclosure), Re, sub nom V and W (Minors), Re, V (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Disclosure), Re [1999] 1 WLR 299, [1999] 1 FLR 267, [1999] 1 FCR 308, (1999) 1 LGLR 316, [1999] Fam Law 14 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1502.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696 In re L (a Minor) (Police Investigation: Privilege) [1997] AC 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 R (L) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2009] UKSC 3, [2010] 1 AC 410, [2010] 1 All ER 113, [2010] PTSR 245, [2009] 3 WLR 1056, 12 CCL Rep 573, [2010] Fam Law 21, [2010] 2 FCR 25, [2010] HRLR 7, (2009) 28 BHRC 391, [2010] UKHRR 115, (2009) 12 CCL Rep 573 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2009/3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386, 387, 435, 436 R (L) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2007] EWCA Civ 168; affirming [2006] EWHC 482 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/168.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 Lamb v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 2 December 2010

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0108.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873

Lamb v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 16 November 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2006_0046.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391, 394, 415, 922 Lancashire Constabulary v Information Commissioner and Wise, First-tier Tribunal, 15 March 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0278.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Lancashire Fires Ltd v SA Lyons & Co Ltd [1997] IRLR 113, [1996] FSR 629 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807, 809 Lansing Linde Ltd v Kerr [1991] 1 WLR 251, [1991] 1 All ER 418, [1991] ICR 428, [1991] IRLR 80 . 150, 841, 842 Latimer v Information Commissioner and Environment Agency, Information Tribunal, 3 August 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2009_0018.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Lavelle v Information Commmissioner and Stafford Borough Council, First-tier Tribunal, 30 November 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0169.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Law Society & ors v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 (QB)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/3185.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788

Lawson v Serco Ltd, sub nom Serco Ltd v Lawson, Crofts v Veta Ltd, Botham v Ministry of Defence [2006] UKHL 3, [2006] 1 All ER 823, [2006] ICR 250, [2006] IRLR 289 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Lawton v Information Commissioner and NHS Direct, Information Tribunal, 5 March 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0081.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548, 769, 772 Lee v Information Commissioner and King’s College Cambridge, First-tier Tribunal, 19 December 2012 . . . . 447, 456, 916, 924 Leeds City Council v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 22 March 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0020.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Leicestershire County Council v Michael Faraday and Partners, Ltd [1941] 2 KB 205, [1941] 2 All ER 483 . . 705 WC Leng & Co Ltd v Andrews [1909] 1 Ch 763 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842

xlvii

TABLES OF CASES Lennon v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Twist [1978] FSR 573 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832 Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1985] QB 526, [1984] 3 WLR 539, [1984] 2 All ER 417 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523, 597 Lipton Ltd v Ford [1917] 2 KB 647 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Little v Information Commissioner and Welsh Assembly Government, First-tier Tribunal, 30 December 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0072.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 215 Littlewoods Organisation Ltd v Harris [1977] 1 WLR 1472, [1978] 1 All ER 1026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 Lock International plc v Beswick [1989] 1 WLR 1268, [1989] 3 AllER 373, [1989] IRLR 481 . . . . . . . . . 840, 841 London County Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association v Nichols [1949] 1 KB 35, [1948] 2 All ER 432 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 London Regional Transport v Mayor of London [2001] EWCA Civ 1491, [2003] EMLR 4 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1491.html . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 597, 805, 810, 813, 816-818 London Underground Ltd v Noel, sub nom Noel v London Underground Ltd [2000] ICR 109, [1999] IRLR 621 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No2) [1982] AC 173, [1981] 3 WLR 33, [1981] 2 All ER 456 . . . . . . . 494 Lord Advocate v Dumbarton DC, Lord Advocate v Strathclyde RC [1990] 2 AC 580, [1989] 3 WLR 1346, [1990] 1 All ER 1, 1990 SC (HL) 1, 1990 SLT 158, (1990) 2 Admin LR 429 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568, 859 Lord Advocate v Scotsman Publications Ltd [1990] 1 AC 812, [1989] 3 WLR 358, [1989] 2 All ER 852, 1989 SC (HL) 122, 1989 SLT 705, [1989] 1 FSR 580 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1989/1989_SC_HL_122.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590, 593, 820 Lord Advocate’s Reference (No1 of 2000), 2001 JC 143, 2001 SLT 507, 2001 SCCR 296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 295, [2008] QB 103, [2007] EMLR 538 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/295.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826 R (Lord) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2073 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/2073.html . . . . . . . . . 129, 160, 163, 174, 504, 537, 596 Lucas v Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1102, [2004] 1 WLR 220, [2003] 4 All ER 720, [2003] CP Rep 65, [2003] Lloyd’s Rep Med 577, (2004) 77 BMLR 13 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1102.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 Luder v Information Commissioner and Cabinet Office, First-tier Tribunal, 13 October 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868 Lumsden v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1914] AC 877, 1915 SC (HL) 123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 AM Luther Co v James Sagor & Co, sub nom Aksionairnoye Obschestvo AM Luther Co v James Sagor & Co [1921] 3 KB 532, (1921) 7 Ll L Rep 218 (CA); reversing [1921] 1 KB 456, (1920) 5 Ll L Rep 451 . . . . . . 654 Lyell v Kennedy (No 3) (1884) 27 ChD 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 Lyons v Stephen House, QPM & anor [2013] CSIH 46

www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2013/2013CSIH46.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377, [1993] 3 WLR 433, [1993] 3 All ER 537, (1995) 7 Admin LR 113 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1993/5.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943 MacFarlane v Information Commissioner and Department of Energy and Climate Change, First-tier Tribunal, 30 November 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Mackinnon v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp [1986] Ch 482, [1986] 2 WLR 453, [1986] 1 All ER 653, [1987] ECC 139, [1986] Fin LR 225 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 MacMahon’s (Aine) Application [2012] NIQB 60

www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2012/2012_NIQB_60.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd [2003] 1 AC 311, [2001] STC 237, [2001] 1 All ER 865, [2001] BTC 44, 73 TC 1, [2001] UKHL 6, [2001] 2 WLR 377, [2001] STI 168 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/6.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 R (Madden) v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council [2002] EWHC 1882 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

xlviii

TABLES OF CASES Madras Electric Supply Corp Ltd v Boarland [1955] AC 667, [1955] 2 WLR 632, [1955] 1 All ER 753 . 568, 859 Magherafelt District Council v Information Commissioner, First-Tier Tribunal, 3 February 2010 . . . . . . 460, 787 Mahmood v Galloway [2006] EWHC 1286, [2006] EMLR 26

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/1286.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830

Maiden v Information Commissioner and King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, Information Tribunal, 15 December 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0013.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 225, 226, 726 Maile v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] Env LR 11, [2001] JPL 118 (Note), [2001] JPL 193 . . . 193, 222, 286 Makin v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 24 January 2011

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0080.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751

Malcolm v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 19 December 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0072.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 Malden Timber Ltd v McLeish 1992 SLT 727 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 R (Malik) v Central Criminal Court, sub nom Malik v Central Criminal Court [2006] EWHC 1539 (Admin), [2006] 4 All ER 1141, (DC) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1539.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 Malloch v Aberdeen Corp (No 1) [1971] 1 WLR 1578, [1971] 2 All ER 1278 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Malone v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (No 2) [1979] Ch 344, [1979] 2 WLR 700, [1979] 2 All ER 620, (1979) 69 Cr App R 168 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478 Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 AC 104, [2011] HLR 7, [2010] 3 WLR 1441, [2010] 45 EG 93, [2011] 1 All ER 285, [2011] PTSR 61, [2010] BLGR 909, [2010] NPC 109 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/45.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 Manchester Corporation v Manchester Palace of Varieties Ltd [1955] P 133 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865 Marcel v Commissioner of Police [1992] Ch 225 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808 R (Marchiori) v Environment Agency, sub nom Marchiori v Environment Agency, R v Environment Agency Ex p Marchiori [2002] EWCA Civ 3, [2002] Eu LR 225, [2002] NPC 16 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Marchiori v Environment Agency [2002] EWCA Civ 3

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620

Markinson v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 28 March 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0014.html . . . . . . . . . . 197, 208, 210, 238, 418, 445 Marlow v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 1 June 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2005_0031.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364 Marlton v Tectronix UK Holdings plc, sub nom Marlton v Tektronix UK Holdings plc [2003] EWHC 383, [2003] Info TLR 258 (Ch) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/383.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Marriott v Information Commissioner and Metropolitan Police Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 6 October 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688, 689 Mars UK Ltd v Waitrose Ltd [2004] EWHC 2264 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Marshall v Gotham Co [1954] AC 360, [1954] 2 WLR 812, [1954] 1 All ER 937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 Re Martin [2002] NIQB 67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Martyres v Information Commissioner and Huntingdonshire District Council, First-tier Tribunal, 6 July 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0101.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 204, 205 Matheison v Information Commissioner and Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, First-tier Tribunal, 18 June 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4, [2003] 1 AC 1163, [2003] 2 WLR 435, [2003] 1 All ER 689, [2003] ICR 247, [2004] HRLR 2, [2003] UKHRR 453, 14 BHRC 585, [2003] PIQR P24, [2003]

xlix

TABLES OF CASES ACD 42

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/4.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 516

McBride v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice, Information Tribunal, 27 May 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0105.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 McBride v The Body Shop International plc [2007] EWHC 1658 (QB) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/1658.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 McCarthy & Stone plc v London Borough of Richmond [1992] 2 AC 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 McCarthy v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 27 April 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0057.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609 McCluskey v Information Commissioner and Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, Information Tribunal, 21 December 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0056.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685, 686 McCullough v Information Commissioner and Northern Ireland Water, First-tier Tribunal, 6 November 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2012_0082.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 McE v Prison Service of Northern Ireland [2009] UKHL 15, [2009] 1 AC 908 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/15.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 McGlade v Information Commissioner and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Information Tribunal, 23 November 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 205, 214 McIntyre v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Defence, Information Tribunal, 4 February 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0068_1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537, 758, 759, 762 McIntyre v Information Commissioner and University of East Anglia, First-tier Tribunal, 7 May 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0051.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232, 233, 852 McKennitt v Ash, sub nom Ash v McKennitt [2006] EWCA Civ 1714, [2008] QB73 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1714.html . . . . . . . . . . . 805, 810, 822, 824, 828, 829, 837 McManus v Beckham [2002] EWCA Civ 939, [2002] 1 WLR 2982, [2002] 4 All ER 497, [2002] EMLR 40 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/939.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362, 384 McMonagle v Westminster City Council [1990] 2 AC 716 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 McNicol v Sportsman’s Book Stores (1930) McGCC 116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813 McTeggart v Information Commissioner and Secretary of State for Culture, Arts and Leisure, Information Tribunal, 4 June 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0084.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529, 790, 797 R (Medway Council, Essex County Council and Mead) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2002] EWHC 2516, [2003] JPL 583, [2002] 49 EG 123 (CS) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/2516.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Meek v Lothian RC (No 2), 1982 SC 84, 1983 SLT 494 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 Melon v Hector Powe Ltd, sub nom Hector Powe Ltd v Melon [1981] 1 All ER 313, 1981 SC (HL) 1, 1981 SLT 74, [1981] ICR 43, [1980] IRLR 477 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929 Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd (No1), sub nom Ackroyd v Mersey Care NHS Trust (No1) [2003] EWCA Civ 663, [2003] EMLR 36, [2003] Lloyd’s Rep Med 379, (2003) 73 BMLR 88 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/663.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335, 337, 809 Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd [2007] EWCA Civ 101, (2007) HRLR 19,[2008] EMLR 1, (2007) 94 BMLR 84 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/101.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Mersey Tunnel Users Association v Information Commissioner and Halton BC, Information Tribunal, 11 January 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 222, 223, 225, 226, 235, 523, 717, 726 Mersey Tunnel Users Association v Information Commissioner and Halton Borough Council, Information Tribunal, 24 June 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2009_0001.html . . . . . . . 198, 205, 207, 208, 215, 439, 726 Mersey Tunnel Users Association v Information Commissioner and Merseytravel, Information Tribunal, 15

l

TABLES OF CASES February 2008

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0052.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725

Merttens v Hill [1901] 1 Ch 842 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Metropolitan Meat Industry Board v Sheedy [1927] AC 899 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Metropolitan Police v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 9 July 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689 Metropolitan Police v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 23 May 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0008.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609, 632, 633 Metropolitan Police v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 30 March 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0078.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689 Meunier v Information Commissioner and National Savings and Investments, Information Tribunal, 5 June 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0059.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872-874, 922 Microsoft Corp v Plato Technology Ltd [1999] Masons CLR 370 (CA); affirming [1999] FSR 834, [1999] Masons CLR 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Mills v Brooker [1919] 1 KB 555 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 Minister of Home Affairs (Bermuda) v Fisher [1980] AC 319, [1979] 2 WLR 889, [1979] 3 All ER 21 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1979/1979_21.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food v Jenkins [1963] 2 QB 317, [1963] 2 WLR 906, [1963] 2 All ER 147 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568, 859 Ministry of Defence v Griffin [2008] EWHC 1542 (QB)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1542.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576, 590

Ministry of Defence’s Application, Re [1994] NI 279 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 Ministry of Justice v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 29 July 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0120.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371, 372, 546, 701, 702 Mitchell v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 10 October 2005 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2005/EA_2005_0002.html . . 365, 366, 371, 480, 531, 701, 702, 926 Mitsui v Nexen Petroleum [2005] 2 All ER 511

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/625.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332, 336

R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 65, [2011] QB 218 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/2048.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591, 647 R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 65, [2011] QB 218 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/65.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621, 658 R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2008] EWHC 2048 (Admin), [2009] 1 WLR 2579 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/2048.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335, 336, 591 Montague v Information Commissioner and Liverpool John Moores University, First-tier Tribunal, 13 December 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2012_0109.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 R (Montpeliers and Trevors Association) v Westminster City Council [2005] EWHC 16, [2006] BLGR 304 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/16.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Moore v Canadian Pacific Steamship Co [1945] 1 All ER 128, (1945) 78 Ll L Rep 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 Moresfield Ltd v Banners (A Firm), Banners v KPMG (A Firm) [2003] EWHC 1602 (Ch) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/1602.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332, 333 R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioners of Income Tax, sub nom R v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex p Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd, R v Special Commissioners of Income Tax Ex p Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd [2002] UKHL 21, [2003] 1 AC 563, [2002] 2 WLR 1299, [2002] 3 All ER 1, [2002] STC 786, [2002] HRLR 42, 74 TC 511, [2002] BTC 223, 4 ITL Rep 809, [2002] STI 806 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/21.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719, 720, 722

li

TABLES OF CASES Morgan v Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 107, [2009] Env LR 30, [2009] CP Rep 26, [2009] 2 P & CR 4, [2009] JPL 1335 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/107.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Morley v Information Commissioner and Surrey Heath Borough Council, First-tier Tribunal, 31 May 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0173.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787 Morris v Beardmore [1981] AC 446, [1980] 3 WLR 283, [1980] 2 All ER 753, (1980) 71 Cr App R 256, [1980] RTR 321 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821 Morris v Information Commissioner and Department of Transport, First-tier Tribunal, 7 June 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0097.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440, 727 Morrissey v Information Commissioner and Office of Communications, Information Tribunal, 11 January 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 687 (QB), [2008] EMLR 679 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828, 829 Moss v Information Commissioner and Home Office, First-tier Tribunal, 24 April 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0081.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818 Mount Murray Country Club Ltd v Macleod [2003] UKPC 53, [2003] STC 1525, 75 TC 197, [2004] BTC 76, [2003] STI 1267 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2003/53.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810, 816 Mucelli v Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) [2009] UKHL 2, [2009] 1 WLR 276 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/2.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 R (Munjaz, Colonel M, and S) v Mersey Care NHS Trust, Airedale NHS Trust, Ashworth Hospital Authority [2005] UKHL 58, [2006] 2 AC 148, [2005] 3 WLR 793; reversing [2003] EWCA Civ 1036, [2004] QB 395, [2003] 3 WLR 1505, [2003] HRLR 38, [2003] Lloyd’s Rep Med 534, (2003) 74 BMLR 178 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/58.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396, 407 R (Munjaz) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2005] UKHL 58, [2006] 2 AC 148, [2006] Lloyds Rep Med 1, [2005] HRLR 42, [2006] 4 All ER 736, [2005] 3 WLR 793, [2005] MHLR 276, (2005) 86 BMLR 84 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/58.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396, 407 Murphy v Murphy, sub nom Murphy’s Settlements, Re [1999] 1 WLR 282, [1998] 3 All ER 1 (Ch) . . . . . . . . 336 Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2007] EWHC 1908

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1908.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178, 786, 788, 790, 833

Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2008] EWCA Civ 446, [2009] Ch 481, [2008] HRLR 33, [2008] UKHRR 736, [2008] 3 FCR 661, [2008] Fam Law 732, [2008] 3 WLR 1360, [2008] 2 FLR 599 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/446.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178, 823, 826, 833, 834 Murray v Yorkshire Fund Managers Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 951, [1998] 2 All ER 1015, [1998] FSR 372 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1997/2958.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806 Mustad v Dosen, sub nom O Mustad & Son v S Allcock & Co [1964] 1 WLR 109 (Note), [1963] 3 All ER 416, [1963] RPC 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812 Muttitt v Information Commissioner and Cabinet Office, First-tier Tribunal, 31 January 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 R (N) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 207, [2003] HRLR 20, [2003] UKHRR 546 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/207.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 R (Nadarajah and Abdi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1363.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 Natural Resources Wales v Swansea Friends of the Earth and Information Commissioner [2013] UKUT 0473 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/473.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Nea Karteria Maritime Co v Atlantic and Great Lakes Steamship Corp (No 2) [1981] Com LR 13 . . . . . . . . . 721 Neale v Hereford and Worcester CC [1986] ICR 471, [1986] IRLR 168 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929 Network Rail Ltd v Information Commissioner and Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, Information Tribunal, 17 July 2007

lii

TABLES OF CASES www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0061.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202, 379

R (New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 51, [2013] PTSR 995, [2013] 4 All ER 195, [2013] 1 WLR 2358 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/51.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478 Newbery v Information Commissioner and Department of Energy and Climate Change, First-tier Tribunal, 3 September 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/EA_2009_0118.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551 Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 6 January 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0236.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546, 547 London Borough of Newham v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 31 October 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0288.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 Newman v Bourne and Hollingworth (1915) 31 TLR 309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 R (Newsum) v Welsh Assembly (No2) [2005] EWHC 538, [2006] Env LR 1, [2005] 2 P & CR 32, [2005] JPL 1486, [2005] 16 EG 144 (CS), [2005] NPC 50 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/538.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 NHS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1988] Imm AR 389 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 Nicholls v Ely Beet Sugar Factory (No 1) [1931] 2 Ch 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Nichrotherm Electrical Co, AG Cox, AE Drew and LEG Francis v GA Percy (JR) and Harvey & Co (London) [1957] RPC 207 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 Nimmo v Alexander Cowan & Sons Ltd [1968] AC 107, [1967] 3 WLR 1169, [1967] 3 All ER 187, 1967 SC (HL) 79, 1967 SLT 277 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494 Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co Ltd, sub nom Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co v Nordenfelt [1894] AC 535 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 Norfolk (Earldom of) Peerage Claim [1907] AC 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866 North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 8 July 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0133.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Northumbrian Water Ltd v British Telecommunications plc [2005] EWHC 2408, [2006] BLR 38 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2005/2408.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners, sub nom Morton-Norwich Products Inc v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, [1973] 3 WLR 164, [1973] 2 All ER 943, [1973] FSR 365, [1974] RPC 101 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1973/6.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335-337, 342 R v Birmingham City Council, ex parte O [1983] 1 AC 578, [1983] 2 WLR 189, [1983] 1 All ER 497, 81 LGR 259 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278, 492 OBG Ltd v Allen [2007] UKHL 21, [2007] 2 WLR 920

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/21.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387, 798, 805, 812

OFCOM v Morrissey and IC [2011] UKUT 116 (AAC)

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2011/116.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875

R (Office of Communications) v Information Commissioner [2009] EWCA Civ 90, [2009] ACD 48, [2009] Info TLR 13 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/90.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 219, 220, 224, 521, 522, 531 R (Office of Communications) v Information Commissioner, [2008] EWHC 1445 (Admin), [2008] ACD 65, [2009] Env LR 1 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1445.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 224 Office of Communications v Information Commissioner and T-Mobile (UK) Ltd, Information Tribunal, 4 September 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0078.html . . 194, 196, 197, 216, 217, 222, 224, 236, 356

liii

TABLES OF CASES Office of Communications v Information Commissioner and Everything Everywhere Ltd, First-tier Tribunal, 12 December 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2006_0078.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219, 522 Office of Communications v Information Commissioner [2010] UKSC 3, [2010] Env LR 20 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190, 197, 219, 220, 224, 521, 853 Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 2 May 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0068.html . . . . . . . 527, 533, 537, 704, 705, 738, 744 Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner [2008] EWHC 737 (Admin), [2010] QB 98, [2008] ACD 54 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/737.html . . . 14, 364, 474, 497, 515, 520, 705, 710-712, 733, 744, 916 Office of Government Communications v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 19 February 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529, 530, 533, 704, 705 In re Officer [2007] UKHL 36, [2007] 1 WLR 2125, [2007] UKHL 36, [2007] WLR 2135, [2007] 4 All ER 965 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/36.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 OFSTED v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 20 February 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 Omagh District Council v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 20 May 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0163.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Onesearch Direct Holdings Ltd (t/a Onesearch Direct) v City of York Council [2010] EWHC 590 (Admin) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/590.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 Oxfordshire County Council v L and F [1997] 1 FLR 235, [1997] 3 FCR 124, [1997] Fam Law 249 . . . . . . . . 743 O’Brien v Information Commissioner and Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, Information Tribunal, 7 October 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0011.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738, 745, 747 O’Brien v Information Commissioner and Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, Information Tribunal, 20 July 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0011.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532 O’Connell v Information Commissioner and Crown Prosecution Service, Information Tribunal, 17 September 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, sub nom R v Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries Ex p Padfield [1968] AC 997, [1968] 2 WLR 924, [1968] 1 All ER 694 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1968/1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 498 Pais v Pais [1971] P 119, [1970] 3 WLR 830, [1970] 3 All ER 491 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729 Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984] 1 WLR 1129, [1984] 1 All ER 945, [1984] ICR 372, [1984] IRLR 119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 Paragon Finance plc v DB Thakerar & Co, Paragon Finance plc v Thimbleby & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1249.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590 Parker v Information Commissioner and Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Information Tribunal, 15 October 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0046.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Patton v Poole BC [2010] UKIPT 09/01/C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 Peach Grey & Co v Sommers [1995] 1 All ER 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907 R (Pelling) v Bow County Court (No 2) [2001] UKHRR 165, [2001] ACD 1 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/636.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Europe v Information Commissioner and University of Oxford, First-tier Tribunal, 18 January 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0076.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497, 767, 770 Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1992] UKHL 3, [1993] AC 593, [1993] 1 All ER 42, [1992] 3 WLR 1032, [1992] STC 898, [1993] IRLR 33, [1999] RVR 127

liv

TABLES OF CASES www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1992/3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12, 14

Perceval-Price v Department of Economic Development [2000] NI 141, [2000] IRLR 380 www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2000/9.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Perrins v Information Commissioner and Wolverhampton City Council, Information Tribunal, 9 January 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0038.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Persey v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs[2002] EWHC 371, [2003] QB 794 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/371.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98, 518, 597, 743, 898 Phillips v Information Commissioner and National Archives, First-tier Tribunal, 15 February 2013 . . . . . 766, 770 Phillips v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 10 February 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 Plowden and Foreign & Commonwealth Office v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 21 May 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0225.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739, 851 Plowden and Foreign & Commonwealth Office v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 21 May 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0225.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657 Plumb v Information Commissioner and Babergh District Council, First-tier Tribunal, 29 November 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2011_0067.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199, 231 Plumbe v Information Commissioner and Hampshire County Council, First-tier Tribunal, 10 September 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0117.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 225 AT Poeton (Gloucester Plating) Ltd v Horton AT Poeton (Gloucester Plating) Ltd v Horton, sub nom Poeton Industries Ltd v Horton [2000] ICR 1208, [2001] FSR 14 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/180.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807 Point of Ayr Collieries Ltd v Lloyd-George [1943] 2 All ER 546 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 Poplar Housing & Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue, sub nom Donoghue v Poplar Housing & Regeneration Community Association Ltd, Poplar Housing & Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donaghue [2001] EWCA Civ 595, [2002] QB 48, [2001] 3 WLR 183, [2001] 4 All ER 604, [2001] 2 FLR 284, [2001] 3 FCR 74, [2001] UKHRR 693, (2001) 33 HLR 73, (2001) 3 LGLR 41, [2001] BLGR 489, [2001] ACD 76, [2001] Fam Law 588 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/595.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Port of London Authority v Information Commissioner and Hibbert, Information Tribunal, 31 May 2007 . . . 197, 202, 204, 379 Portman Building Society v Royal Insurance plc (t/a Fox & Sons) [1998] PNLR 672 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 Powell v Chief Constable of North Wales Constabulary, unreported, 16 December 1999 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321, [1994] 3 WLR 970, [1994] 3 All ER 407 (PC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1994/4.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514, 710, 711, 715 President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and another v Royal Bank of Scotland International [2006] UKPC 7, [2006] 3 LRC 676 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2006/7.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335, 336 Preston Borough Council v McGrath, The Times, 19 May 2000; Independent, 19 May 2000 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/151.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 PricewaterhouseCooper v Information Commissioner [2011] UKUT 372 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2011/372.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Prince’s Case (1606) 8 Co Rep 1a, 4 Co Inst 361, 363, 1 Bl Com (14th edn) 271 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/1606/J6.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865, 866 Printers & Finishers Ltd v Holloway (No2) [1965] 1 WLR 1, [1964] 3 All ER 731, [1965] RPC 239 (Ch) . . . . 807 Prior v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 27 April 2006

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0017.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359, 422, 924

R (ProLife Alliance) v BBC [2003] UKHL 23, [2004] 1 AC 185, [2003] 2 WLR 1403, [2003] 2 All ER 977, [2003] EMLR 23, [2003] HRLR 26, [2003] UKHRR 758, [2003] ACD 65 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/23.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 Pruden v Cunard Ellerman [1993] IRLR 317 (EAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

lv

TABLES OF CASES R (on the application of Prudential PLC) v HMRC [2013] UKSC 1, [2013] 2 WLR 325, [2013] CILL 3309, [2013] 1 FCR 545, [2013] STI 264,[2013] STC 376, [2013] 5 EG 96,[2013] 2 Costs LR 275, [2013] BTC 45, [2013] 2 All ER 247 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/1.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland v Information Commissioner and Collins, First-tier Tribunal, 3 June 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0109.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685 Pugh v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Defence, Information Tribunal, 17 December 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0055.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523, 725 Pycroft v Information Commissioner and Stroud District Council, First-tier Tribunal, 11 February 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0165.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787 Pye (Oxford) Estates Ltd v Wychavon District Council and Secretary of State for the Environment [1982] JPL 575 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 Queen Mary University of London v London and Courtney, First-tier Tribunal, 22 May 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0229.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548-550 Quinn v Information Commissioner and Secretary of State for the Home Department, Information Tribunal, 15 November 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2006_0010.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439, 924 R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13, [2003] 2 AC 687, [2003] 1 FCR 577, [2003] 2 All ER 113, (2003) 71 BMLR 209 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/13.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 R (Ali & anor) v Minister for the Cabinet Office the Statistics Board [2012] EWHC 1943 (Admin) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1943.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790 R (British Telecommunications plc & ors) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin), [2012] 3 CMLR 98 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/1021.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 R (British Telecommunications plc & ors) v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport [2012] EWCA Civ 232, [2012] 2 CMLR 23, [2012] Bus LR 1766 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/232.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 R (Equality and Human Rights Commission) v Prime Minister [2011] EWHC 2401 (Admin), [2012] 1 WLR 1389 (DC) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2401.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 R (Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs) v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner North London [2013 EWCH 3724 (Admin) (DC) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/3724.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591, 592, 621 R (von Brandenburg) v East London and The City Mental Health NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 239, [2002] QB 235, (2001) 61 BMLR 206, [2001] MHLR 36, [2002] ACD 9 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/239.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 R v A (No 2) [2001] UKHL 25, [2002] 1 AC 45, [2001] 2 WLR 1546, [2001] 3 All ER 1, [2001] 2 Cr App R 21, [2001] HRLR 48, [2001] UKHRR 825, (2001) 11 BHRC 225 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/25.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 R v Alibhai[2004] EWCA Crim 681

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/681.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

R v Ataou [1988] QB 798, [1988] 2 WLR 1147, [1988] 2 All ER 321, (1988) 87 Cr App R 210, (1988) 152 JP 201, [1988] Crim LR 461 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 “R” v Attorney General for England and Wales [2003] UKPC 22, [2004] 1 LRC 132, [2003] All ER (D) 246 (Mar), [2003] EMLR 499 (PC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2003/22.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575, 576, 590, 594 R v Barnes Borough Council, ex p Conlan [1938] 3 All ER 226, 36 LGR 524, DC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278, 287 R v Bedwellty Urban District Council, ex p Price [1934] 1 KB 333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

lvi

TABLES OF CASES R v Brent Health Authority, ex parte Francis [1985] QB 869, [1984] 3 WLR 1317, [1985] 1 All ER 74, (1985) 82 LSG 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 R v British Coal Corporation, ex parte Ibstock Building Products Ltd [1995] Env LR 277 . . . . . . . . . . . . 193, 224 R v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex parte Granada Television Ltd [1995] EMLR 163, [1995] COD 207 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831 R v Broadcasting Standards Commission, ex parte BBC [2001] QB 885, [2000] 3 WLR 1327, [2000] 3 All ER 989, [2001] BCC 432, [2001] 1 BCLC 244, [2000] EMLR 587, [2000] HRLR 374, [2000] UKHRR 624, [2000] COD 322 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/116.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837 R v Brushett [2000] All ER (D) 2432 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 R v Bude-Stratton Town Council, ex p Bennett [2005] EWHC 2341 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 R v Central Criminal Court ex p Randle [1991] 1 WLR 1087 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 R v Central Criminal Court, ex p Francis and Francis [1989] AC 346 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 R v Central Criminal Court, ex parte Francis & Francis (A Firm) [1989] AC 346, [1988] 3 WLR 989, [1988] 3 All ER 77, (1989) 88 Cr App R 213, [1989] Crim LR 444, [1989] COD 231 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52, [2011] 1 AC 684, [2011] 1 Cr App Rep 22, [2011] 1 All ER 805, [2011] 1 Cr App R 22 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/52.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711, 713, 714 R v Chief Constable of B County Constabulary Ex p Director of the National Identification Service, ex parte R, unreported, Laws J, November 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 R v Chief Constable of North Wales, ex parte AB [1999] QB 396, [1998] 3 WLR 57, [1998] 3 All ER 310, [1998] 2 FLR 571, [1998] 3 FCR 371, [1998] Fam Law 529 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/486.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386, 387 R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, ex p Wiley [1995] 1 AC 274, [1994] 3 All ER 420, [1995] 1 Cr App R 342, [1994] COD 520 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1994/8.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591, 592

R v Cornwall County Council, ex parte Huntington [1994] 1 All ER 694 (CA); affirming [1992] 3 All ER 566, [1992] COD 223 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 R v Cox (Richard Cobden), R v Railton (Richard Johnson) (1884–85) LR 14 QBD 153, [1881–85] All ER Rep 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 R v Dacorum Borough Council, ex parte Cannon [1996] 2 PLR 45, [1996] EG 97 (CS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 R v Davis (Iain), R v Simms (Rodrigo Fernando), R v Ellis (Marcus Junior), R v Gregory (Michael), R v Martin (Nathan) [2006] EWCA Crim 1155, [2006] 1 WLR 3130, [2006] 4 All ER 648, [2006] 2 Cr App R 32, [2007] Crim LR 70 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/1155.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 R v Davis [1993] 1 WLR 613 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 R v Department of Health, ex parte Source Informatics Ltd (No 1) [2001] QB 424, [2000] 2 WLR 940, [2000] 1 All ER 786, [2000] Eu LR 397, [2001] FSR 8, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep Med 76, (2000) 52 BMLR 65, [2000] COD 76 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/3011.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145, 806, 820 R v Derby Magistrates Court, ex parte B [1996] AC 487, [1995] 3 WLR 681, [1995] 4 All ER 526, [1996] 1 Cr App R 385, (1995) 159 JP 785, [1996] 1 FLR 513, [1996] Fam Law 210 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1995/18.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719, 720, 722, 723, 725, 727 R v Director of Government Communications Headquarters, ex parte Hodges [1988] COD 123 . . . . . . . . . . 619 R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909, [1993] 2 All ER 853, [1993] COD 23 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1992/7.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817 R v DPP, ex parte Kebilene [2000] 2 AC 326, [1999] 3 WLR 972, [1999] 4 All ER 801, [2000] 1 Cr App R

lvii

TABLES OF CASES 275, [2000] HRLR 93, [2000] UKHRR 176, (2000) 2 LGLR 697, (1999) 11 Admin LR 1026, [2000] Crim LR 486 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/43.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 R v Gibbins (Martin) [2004] EWCA Crim 311

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/311.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721

R v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Osman (No 1) [1991] 1 WLR 281, [1992] 1 All ER 108, (1991) 93 Cr App R 202, [1991] Crim LR 533 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592, 647, 664 R v Graham-Campbell, ex parte Herbert [1935] 1 KB 594 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714 R v H, R v C [2004] UKHL 3, [2004] 2 AC 134, [2004] 2 WLR 335, [2004] 1 All ER 1269, [2004] 2 Cr App R 10, [2004] HRLR 20, 16 BHRC 332 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343, 346-348, 591, 592, 689 R v London Borough of Hackney, ex parte Gamper [1985] 1 WLR 1229, [1985] 3 All ER 275, 83 LGR 359, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 R v Hampstead Borough Council, ex parte Woodward (1917) 15 LGR 309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 R v Hay (1860) 2 F & F 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729 R v Hillingdon Borough Council, ex parte Streeting (No 2) [1980] 1 WLR 1425, [1980] 3 All ER 413, 79 LGR 167, (1980) 10 Fam Law 249 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 R v London Borough of Hillingdon, ex p Islam (Tafazzul) [1983] 1 AC 688, [1981] 3 WLR 942, [1981] 3 All ER 901, (1981–82) 1 HLR 107, 80 LGR 141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 R v HM Coroner for Newcastle upon Tyne, ex parte A (1998) 162 JP 387, [1998] COD 163 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 R v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, ex parte Bennett (No 2) [1994] 1 All ER 289, (1994) 99 Cr App R 123, [1994] Crim LR 370 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647, 664 R v Hunt (Richard Selwyn) [1987] AC 352, [1986] 3 WLR 1115, [1987] 1 All ER 1, (1987) 84 Cr App R 163, [1987] Crim LR 263 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494 R v Independent Television Commission, ex p TV NI Ltd, The Times, 30 December 1991 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . 421 R v Inhabitants of Eastbourne (1803) 4 East 103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 R v Inhabitants of the County of Bedfordshire (1855) 24 LJQB 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523 R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Rossminster Ltd [1980] AC 952, [1980] 2 WLR 1, [1980] 1 All ER 80, [1980] STC 42, (1980) 70 Cr App R 157, [1979] TR 427 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1979/5.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte TC Coombs & Co [1991] 2 AC 283, [1991] 2 WLR 682, [1991] 3 All ER 623, [1991] STC 97, (1991) 3 Admin LR 501, 64 TC 124, [1991] COD 338 . . . . . . . . . 493 R v Inner London Education Authority, ex parte Westminster City Council [1986] 1 WLR 28, [1986] 1 All ER 19, 84 LGR 120, (1986) 83 LSG 359, (1986) 130 SJ 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 R v London Borough of Islington, ex p Rixon [1997] ELR 66, (1997–98) 1 CCL Rep 119, (1996) 32 BMLR 136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 R v James (Daniel) [2009] EWCA Crim 1261, [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 R v Jones (Margaret) [2006] UKHL 16, [2007] 1 AC 136

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/16.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620

R v Jones (Margaret), Swain v DPP, Ayliffe v DPP, R v Richards (Josh), R v Pritchard (Philip), R v Olditch (Toby), R v Milling (Arthur Paul) [2006] UKHL 16, [2007] 1 AC 136, [2006] 2 WLR 772, [2006] 2 All ER 741, [2006] 2 Cr App R 9, [2007] Crim LR 66, [2006] ACD 52 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/16.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 R v Keane (Stephen John) [1994] 1 WLR 746, [1994] 2 All ER 478, (1994) 99 Cr App R 1, [1995] Crim LR 225 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 R v Royal London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, ex parte Stoop and Edinburgh Trust [1992] 1 PLR 58, [1991] JPL 1129, [1992] COD 87, (1992) 156 LG Rev 582, [1991] EG 85 (CS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 R v Keogh (David) [2007] EWCA Crim 528, [2007] 1 WLR 1500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589

lviii

TABLES OF CASES R v Khan (Sultan) [1997] AC 558, [1996] 3 WLR 162, [1996] 3 All ER 289, [1996] 2 Cr App R 440, [1996] Crim LR 733 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1996/14.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821 R v Lancashire County Council Police Authority, ex p Hook [1980] QB 603 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278, 287 R v Lancashire County Council, ex p Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 941, (1986) 136 NLJ 562 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . 493 R v Licensing Authority, ex parte Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd (No 1) [1990] 1 AC 64, [1989] 2 WLR 397, [1989] 1 All ER 578, [1989] 2 CMLR 137, [1989] 1 FSR 440, [1989] COD 478 . . . . . . . . . . 808 R v Liverpool City Council, ex parte Baby Products Association (2000) 2 LGLR 689, [2000] BLGR 171, [2000] COD 91 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/832.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387, 479 R v Local Authority in the Midlands [2000] 1 FCR 736 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 R v London Borough of Brent, ex p Assegai (1987) 151 LG Rev 891 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 R v London Borough of Tower Hamlets, ex p Khalique [1995] 2 FCR 1074, (1994) 26 HLR 517 . . . . . . . . . . 281 R v London Boroughs Transport Committee, ex parte Freight Transport Association Ltd [1991] 1WLR 828, [1991] 3 All ER 916, (1992) 156 JP 69, [1991] RTR 337, [1992] 1 CMLR 5, [1993] Env LR 62, (1992) 4 Admin LR 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682, [1993] 3 WLR 1112, [1993] 1 All ER 97, [1993] ICR 114 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1992/12.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 R v Lord Saville of Newdigate, ex parte B (No 2) [2000] 1 WLR 1855, [1999] 4 All ER 860, [1999] COD 436 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/3012.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 R v Loveridge (William) [2001] EWCA Crim 973, [2001] 2 Cr App R 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837 R v McDonald (Michael Christopher) [2004] EWCA Crim 2614, (2004) 148 SJLB 1218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591 R v Mid Glamorgan Family Health Services, ex p Martin [1995] 1 WLR 110, [1995] 1 All ER 356, [1995] 1 FLR 282, [1995] 2 FCR 578, [1995] PIQR P103, [1994] 5 Med LR 383 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith [1996] QB 517, [1996] 2 WLR 305, [1996] 1 All ER 257, [1996] ICR 740, [1996] IRLR 100, (1996) 8 Admin LR 29, [1996] COD 237 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1995/22.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505, 512, 620, 927 R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Pow (1997–98) 1 CCL Rep 280, (1998) 39 BMLR 77 (QB) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1997/765.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 R v Northumbrian Water Ltd , ex parte Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority [1999] Env LR 715, [1999] EHLR 296, [1999] JPL 704 (QB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 R v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Garlick [1993] AC 509, [1993] 2 WLR 609, [1993] 2 All ER 65, [1993] 2 FLR 194, [1993] 2 FCR 133, (1993) 25 HLR 319, 91 LGR 287 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, ex parte Al-Fayed [1998] 1 WLR 669, [1998] 1 All ER 93, (1998) 10 Admin LR 69, [1998] COD 139 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1997/2488.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515, 932 R v Pearce (Nicholas Andrew) [1967] 1 QB 150, [1966] 3 WLR 823, [1966] 3 All ER 618, (1966) 50 Cr App R 305 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767 R v Peterborough Justices, ex p Hicks [1977] 1 WLR 1371 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 R v Preston (Stephen), R v Clarke (Nicholas Henry), R v Austen (Anthony), R v Salter (Jeremy), R v Preston (Zena) [1994] 2 AC 130, [1993] 3 WLR 891, [1993] 4 All ER 638, (1994) 98 Cr App R 405, [1994] Crim LR 676 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591 R v Preston Supplementary Benefits Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Moore [1975] 1 WLR 624 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . 503 R v Reading Justices, ex parte Berkshire County Council [1996] 1 Cr App R 239, [1996] 1 FLR 149, [1996] 2 FCR 535, [1996] Crim LR 347, [1995] COD 385 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 R v Registrar of Companies, ex parte Esal (Commodities) Ltd (In Liquidation) [1986] QB 1114, [1986] 2

lix

TABLES OF CASES WLR 177, [1986] 1 All ER 105, (1985) 1 BCC 99501, [1986] PCC 235 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 R v Rooney [2006] EWCA Crim 1841

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/1841.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147, 179

R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Vidler [1993] COD 305 . . . . . . . 504, 514 R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Everett [1989] QB 811, [1989] 2 WLR 224, [1989] 1 All ER 655, [1989] Imm AR 155, [1989] COD 291 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1988/7.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 R v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte C [2000] 1 FLR 627, [2000] 1 FCR 471, [2000] HRLR 400, [2000] UKHRR 639, (2000) 3 CCL Rep 412, [2000] Fam Law 311 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478 R v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Wagstaff [2001] 1 WLR 292, [2000] HRLR 646, [2000] UKHRR 875, (2000) 56 BMLR 199, [2001] ACD 24 (DC) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/634.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98, 518, 597, 743 R v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, [1999] 3 All ER 400, [1999] EMLR 689, 7 BHRC 411, (1999) 11 Admin. LR 961, [1999] Prison LR 82, [1999] COD 520 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/33.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 R v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, ex parte Gilmore, unreported, 10 April 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte London Borough of Greenwich [1989] COD 530 (DC) . 478 R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler [1977] QB 122, [1976] 3 WLR 288, [1976] 3 All ER 90, 75 LGR 45, (1976) 32 P & CR 166 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions, ex parte Marson [1999] 1 CMLR 268, [1998] Env LR 761, (1999) P & CR 202, [1998] 3 PLR 90, [1998] JPL 869 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203, 228 R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 2 AC 349, [2001] 2 WLR 15, (2001) 33 HLR 31, [2001] 1 EGLR 129, [2000] UKHL 61, [2000] EG 152, [2000] NPC 139, [2001] 1 All ER 195 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2000/61.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 14 R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte Alliance against Birmingham Northern Relief Road (No 1) [1999] Env LR 447, [1999] JPL 231, [1999] COD 45 . . 192, 233, 234, 852, 853 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Cheblak [1991] 1 WLR 890, [1991] 2 All ER 319, (1992) 4 Admin LR 353, [1991] COD 394 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Duggan [1994] 3 All ER 277, [1994] COD 258 . . 743 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ruddock [1987] 1 WLR 1482, [1987] 2 All ER 518 (QB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte B, The Times, 29 January 1991, (DC) . . . . . . . . . . 619 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513, [1995] 2 WLR 464, [1995] 2 All ER 244, (1995) 7 Admin LR 473, [1995] PIQR P228 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1995/3.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Chabal [1995] 1 WLR 526, [1995] 1 All ER 658, [1994] Imm AR 107, (1994) 6 Admin LR 789 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74, [1983] 2 WLR 321, [1983] 1 All ER 765, [1982] Imm AR 139 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1983/8.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fayed (No 1) [1998] 1 WLR 763, [1997] 1 All ER 228, [1997] INLR 137, [1997] COD 205 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte McQuillan [1995] 4 All ER 400, [1995] COD 137 (QB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hosenball [1977] 1 WLR 766, [1977] 3 All ER 452 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572, 619 R v Secretary of State for the Home Office, ex parte Lord [2003] EWHC 2073 (Admin), [2004] Prison LR 65

lx

TABLES OF CASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Evans and Commission for Racial Equality [1992] COD 196 . . 504, 514 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No5) [2000] 1 AC 524, [1999] 3 WLR 1062; affirming [1999] 2 All ER 640 (Note), [1998] 3 CMLR 192 (CA); affirming [1998] 1 All ER 736 (Note), [1998] 1 CMLR 1353, [1997] Eu LR 475, (1998) 10 Admin LR 107 (QB) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1971.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 R v Shayler (David Michael) [2002] UKHL 11, [2003] 1 AC 247, [2002] 2 WLR 754, [2002] 2 All ER 477, [2002] HRLR 33, [2002] UKHRR 603, [2002] ACD 58; affirming [2001] EWCA Crim 1977, [2001] 1 WLR 2206, [2002] HRLR 3, [2001] Crim LR 986 (CA) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/11.html . . . . . . . . . . 587, 588, 593-595, 807, 814, 815, 820, 834 R v Shayler (David) [2003] EWCA Crim 2218

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2003/2218.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593

R v Sheffield Crown Court, ex p Brownlow [1980] QB 530 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 R v Smith [1975] QB 531 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736 R v Socialist Worker Printers & Publishers Ltd, ex parte Attorney General [1975] QB 637, [1974] 3 WLR 801, [1975] 1 All ER 142, [1974] Crim LR 711 (DC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884 R v Southwold Corporation, ex parte Wrightson (1907) 5 LGR 888 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 R v Stratford Justices, ex p Imbert [1999] All ER (D) 115, [1999] 2 Cr App R 276 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 R v Swansea City Council, ex parte Elitestone Ltd (1993) 66 P & CR 422, [1993] 2 PLR 65, [1993] 46 EG 181, [1993] JPL 1019, [1994] COD 80 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 R v Tompkins (1977) 67 Cr App R 181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 R v Wansdworth R v London Borough of Wandsworth, ex parte Darker Enterprises Ltd (1999) 1 LGLR 601 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 R v Ward (Judith Theresa) [1993] 1 WLR 619, [1993] 2 All ER 577, (1993) 96 Cr App R 1, [1993] Crim LR 312 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 R v Warwickshire District Council, ex parte Bailey [1991] COD 284 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 R v Wheatley (Peter Richard) [1979] 1 WLR 144, [1979] 1 All ER 954, (1979) 68 Cr App R 287 (CA) . . . . . . 494 R v Whitehouse (Neil) [2000] Crim LR 172 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767 R v Wright (1934) 25 Cr App R 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 Randall v Information Commissioner and Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, Information Tribunal, 30 October 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439, 923 JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade & Industry [1989] Ch 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654 RB (Algeria) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2009] UKHL 10, [2009] 2 WLR 512 . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 Re a Company’s Application [1989] Ch 477 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, [2005] 1 AC 593 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814, 834 Re Saxton [1962] 1 WLR 968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717 Re Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd [2013] EWHC 2485 (Ch) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/2485.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Redman v Information Commissioner and Norfolk County Council, First-tier Tribunal, 13 November 2012

www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i888/20121113%20Decision%20FINAL %20EA20120182.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811

Reed v Information Commissioner and Astley Abbotts Parish Council, Information Tribunal, 29 December 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2006_0018.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 Reed v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 3 July 2009

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0095.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455

Reid & Sigrist Ltd v Moss & Mechanism Ltd (1932) 49 RPC 461 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841

lxi

TABLES OF CASES Rein v Lane (1867) LR 2 QB 144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 Reith v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, Information Tribunal, 1 June 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0058.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494, 529, 697 Remington v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 23 January 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212, 215 Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127, [1999] 3 WLR 1010, [1999] 4 All ER 609, [2000] EMLR 1, [2000] HRLR 134, 7 BHRC 289 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/45.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 523 Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 5 December 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0065.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211, 551, 552 Ricci v Chow [1987] 1 WLR 1658, [1987] 3 All ER 534 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 R (Richardson) v North Yorkshire County Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1860, [2004] 1 WLR 1920; affirming [2003] EWHC 764, [2004] Env LR 13, [2004] 1 P & CR 23, [2003] 18 EG 113 (CS) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1860.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Riley v Attorney General of Jamaica [1983] 1 AC 719, [1982] 3 WLR 557, [1982] 2 All ER 469, [1982] Crim LR 679 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 Ritchie v Information Tribunal, First-tier Tribunal, 26 July 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95, 497, 873 Robb v Green [1895] 2 QB 315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 Robert Hitchins Ltd v ICL, CA, 10 December 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717 Roberts v Information Commissioner and Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, Information Tribunal, 20 August 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2009_0035.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Roberts v Information Commissioner and Department for Business, Industry and Science, First-tier Tribunal, 26 May 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0035.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159, 441, 786 Roberts v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 4 December 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391, 439 Roberts v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 16 June 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2006_0008.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922, 924 Roberts v Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust [2008] EWHC 1934 (QB), [2009] FSR 4, [2008] MHLR 294 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1934.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 163 Roberts v Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust, Information Tribunal, 1 August 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 R (Robertson) v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 1760, [2003] ACD 78 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/1760.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831 R (Robertson) v Wakefield Metropolitan District Counil v Electoral Registration Officer [2001] EWHC Admin 915, [2002] QB 1052, [2002] 2 WLR 889, [2002] BLGR 286, [2002] ACD 40 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/915.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788, 831 Robinson v Information Commissioner and East Ridings of Yorkshire Council, Information Tribunal, 9 October 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0012.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Rogers v Secretary of State for the Home Department, R v Lewes Justices, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department, R v Lewes Justices, ex parte Gaming Board for Great Britain [1973] AC 388, [1972] 3 WLR 279, [1972] 2 All ER 1057 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743 R (Rose) v Secretary of State for Health [2002] EWHC 1593, [2002] 2 FLR 962, [2002] 3 FCR 731, [2002] UKHRR 1329, (2003) 69 BMLR 83, [2003] ACD 6, [2003] Fam Law 19 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/1593.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 493 Rosenbaum v Information Commission and House of Lords Appointments Commission, Information Tribunal, 4 November 2008 /www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0035.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724

lxii

TABLES OF CASES Rost v Edwards [1990] 2 QB 460, [1990] 2 WLR 1280, [1990] 2 All ER 641 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714 Rowe v Fryers [2003] EWCA Civ 655

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/655.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

Rowland and Financial Services Authority v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 3 April 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0075.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873, 874 Royal Mail Group Ltd v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 8 September 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0005.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906 Rudd v Information Commissioner and Verderers of the New Forest, Information Tribunal, 29 September 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0020.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225, 226 Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 55, [2012] 1 WLR 3333, [2013] 1 CMLR 56, [2013] HRLR 8, [2013] 1 All ER 928 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/55.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788 Russell v Queen, The (1881–82) LR 7 App Cas 829 (PC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 Ryanair Ltd v Information Commissioner and Office of Fair Trading, First-tier Tribunal, 28 January 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0088.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655, 663, 664, 698 Re S [2004] UKHL 47, [2005] 1 AC 593, [2004] 4 All ER 683, [2005] UKHRR 129, [2005] EMLR 2, (2005) 17 BHRC 646, [2005] Crim LR 310, [2004] 3 FCR 407, [2005] HRLR 5, [2005] 1 FLR 591 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/47.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884 S v Information Commissioner and General Register Office, Information Tribunal, 9 May 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0030.html . . 368, 532, 540, 797, 808, 810, 811, 815 S v London Borough of Newham [1998] EMLR 583, [1998] 1 FLR 1061, [1998] 3 FCR 277, [1998] Fam Law 387 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 R (S) v Plymouth City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 388, [2002] 1 WLR 2583, [2002] 1 FLR 1177, [2002] BLGR 565 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/388.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 97, 515, 517, 596 Saber v Secretary of State Home Department [2008] UKHL 97, [2008] 3 All ER 97 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/57.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 Salmon v Information Commissioner and King’s College Cambridge, Information Tribunal, 17 July 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0135.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226, 234, 757, 786, 787 Saltman Engineering Co v Campbell Engineering Co (1948) [1963] 3 All ER 413 (Note), (1948) 65 RPC 203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805, 806, 809 R (Samaroo) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1139, [2001] UKHRR 1150 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1139.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 Saunders v Punch Ltd (t/a Liberty Publishing) [1998] 1 WLR 986, [1998] 1 All ER 234, [1998] EMLR 18 . . . 725 Save Guana Cay Reef Association Ltd v The Queen & Ors (Bahamas) [2009] UKPC 44 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2009/44.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Schering Chemicals Ltd v Falkman Ltd [1982] QB 1, [1981] 2 WLR 848, [1981] 2 All ER 321 . . . . . . . . . . . 812 Science Research Council v Nassé [1980] AC 1028 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 Scotland Office (Stage 2) v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 10 March 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2007_0070.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669 Scotland Office v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 8 August 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0070.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 494, 496, 524, 527 Scotland Office v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 5 August 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0128.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745, 748, 749 Scott (aka Morgan) v Scott [1913] AC 417 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530 Scottish Ministers v Scottish Information Commissioner [2007] CSIH 8, 2007 SLT 274, 2007 SCLR 253 www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2008/CSIH_08.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666, 920 Scottish Ministers v Scottish Information Commissioner, 2007 ScotCS CSIH 8

lxiii

TABLES OF CASES www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2007/CSIH_8.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494, 529, 755, 756, 917

Secretary of State for Defence v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [1985] AC 339, [1984] 3 WLR 986, [1984] 3 All ER 601 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337, 622 Secretary of State for Defence v Information Commissioner and Evans, Information Tribunal, 20 July 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0027.html . . . . . . . . . . . 529, 536, 540, 621, 767, 790 Shelley Films Ltd v Rex Features Ltd [1994] EMLR 134 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810 Shipton v Information Commissioner and National Assembly of Wales, Information Tribunal, 11 January 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0028.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725, 726, 758 Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council & anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & anor [2008] EWCA Civ 148, [2008] 3 All ER 548 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/148.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478 Sikka v Information Commissioner and HM Revenue & Customs, First-tier Tribunal, 11 July 2011 . . . . . . . . . 664 Simmons v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 16 December 2005 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2005/EA_2005_0003.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 Simmons v Potter [1975] RTR 347, [1975] Crim LR 354 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 Simpson v Attorney General, sub nom Attorney General v Simpson [1904] AC 476; reversing [1901] 2 Ch 671 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Sinclair v Information Commissioner and Department of Energy and Climate Change, First-tier Tribunal, 8 November 2011

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/[2011]_UKFTT_EA20110052_(GRC)_2011-11-08. html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199, 224

Sittampalam v Information Commissioner and BBC, First-tier Tribunal, 4 July 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447, 474 Skinner v Information Commissioner and North Somerset Council, First-tier Tribunal, 1 March 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0184.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225, 725 Slann v Information Commissioner and Financial Services Authority, Information Tribunal, 11 July 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0019.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873-875 Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283, [1990] 3 WLR 967, [1990] 1 All ER 165 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 In re Smalley [1985] AC 622 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 Smartsource v Information Commissioner [2010] UKUT 415 (AAC), [2011] JPL 455 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2010/415.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202, 203 Smeaton v Equifax plc [2013] EWCA Civ 108

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/108.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782

Smith (Kathleen Rose) v East Elloe Rural DC [1956] AC 736, [1956] 2 WLR 888, [1956] 1 All ER 855, (1956) 120 JP 263, 54 LGR 233, (1956) 6 P & CR 102 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1956/2.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] UKSC 29, [2011] 1 AC 1, [2010] Inquest LR 119, [2010] UKHRR 1020, [2010] 3 All ER 1067, [2010] 3 WLR 223, [2010] HRLR 28, 29 BHRC 497 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/29.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Smith v East India Co (1841) 1 Ph 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742 Smith v Information Commissioner and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, First-tier Tribunal, 15 September 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2011_0006.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Smith v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 20 March 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0001.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922 Smith v Lloyds TSB Bank plc [2005] EWHC 246 (Ch)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/246.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134-136, 139

Smith v Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41, [2013] 3 WLR 69, [2013] HRLR 27 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/41.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645

lxiv

TABLES OF CASES Smyrl v Information Commissioner and Statistics Board, First-tier Tribunal, 3 April 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0241.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 Snowstar Shipping Co Ltd v Graig Shipping plc [2003] EWHC 1367 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2003/1367.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Sofola v Lloyds TSB Bank plc [2005] EWHC 1335 (QB), [2005] All ER (D) 299 (Jun) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1335.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Somatra Ltd v Sinclair Roche & Temperley (No 1) [2000] 1 WLR 2453, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 673, [2000] CPLR 601 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/229.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 South Gloucestershire Council v Information Commissioner and Bovis Homes Ltd, Information Tribunal, 20 October 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 219, 227, 234, 235, 521, 522 South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish Information Commissioner [2013] UKSC 55, 2013 GWD 25-508, 2013 SLT 799, [2013] 1 WLR 2421 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/55.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 176, 504, 596, 789, 898, 913, 920 Southampton City Council v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 19 February 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0171.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177, 937 Spurgeon v Information Commissioner and Horsham District Council, Information Tribunal, 29 June 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0089.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195, 197, 922 Squier v Information Commissioner and Metropolitan Police Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 13 November 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Staffordshire County Council v Information Commissioner and Sibelco (UK) Ltd, First-tier Tribunal, 20 December 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0015.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 235, 852 Standerwick v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 27 July 2010

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0065.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725

Standex International Ltd v CB Blades Ltd [1976] FSR 114 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 R (Stennett) v Manchester CC [2002] UKHL 34, [2002] 2 AC 1127, (2002) 5 CCL Rep 500, [2002] 3 WLR 584, [2002] BLGR 557, (2002) 68 BMLR 247 [2002] 4 All ER 124 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/34.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 Stephen v Information Commissioner and Legal Services Commission, Information Tribunal, 25 February 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873, 923 Stephens v Avery [1988] Ch 449, [1988] 2 WLR 1280, [1988] 2 All ER 477, [1988] FSR 510 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802 Stephens v Information Commissioner and Crown Prosecution Service, First-tier Tribunal, 1 June 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0057.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923 Stephens v Information Commissioner and Crown Prosecution Service, First-tier Tribunal, 20 December 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/EA_2012_0075.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685 Stevenson v Information Commissioner and Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, Information Tribunal, 14 October 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0006.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778 Stevenson v Information Commissioner and North Lancashire Primary Care Trust [2013] UKUT 181 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/181.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697, 698

Stevenson v Secretary of State for Home Department, Information Tribunal, 30 April 2009 . . 161, 505, 518, 569, 638 Stirrat v Edinburgh City Council 1999 SLT 274, 1998 SCLR 971, 1998 GWD 23–1182 (OH) . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Stoke on Trent City Council v B&Q (Retail) Ltd [1984] AC 754, [1984] 2 WLR 929 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 Stone v South East Coast Strategic Health Authority [2006] EWHC 1668 (Admin) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1668.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791 Re Stuart, Olivant and Seadon’s Contract [1896] 2 Ch 328 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

lxv

TABLES OF CASES Student Loans Company Ltd v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 17 July 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0092.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527, 845 Sugar v BBC (No 2) [2012] UKSC 4, [2012] 1 WLR 439, [2012] EMLR 17, [2012] 2 All ER 509 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/4.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 99, 102, 168, 376, 499, 597 Sugar v BBC [2009] UKHL 9, [2009] 1 WLR 430, [2009] 4 All ER 111 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/9.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 370, 375-377, 914, 917, 921, 932 Sugar v British Broadcasting Commission & anor [2010] EWCA Civ 715, [2010] 1 WLR 2278, [2010] EMLR 24 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/715.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Sugar v Information Commissioner and BBC, Information Tribunal, 14 May 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757 Sumitomo Corporation v Credit Lyonnais Rouse Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 479 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2002/124.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717 Summers v Information Commissioner and Metropolitan Police, First-tier Tribunal, 24 February 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0186.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618, 622, 625, 767, 772 Sumukan Ltd v Commonwealth Secretariat, sub nom Sukuman Ltd v Commonwealth Secretariat [2007] EWCA Civ 243, [2007] 1 CLC 282 (CA); affirming [2006] EWHC 304 (Comm), [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 621, [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 53 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/243.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656 Surrey Heath Borough Council v Information Commissioner and McCullen, First-tier Tribunal, 11 August 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0034.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 231 Chief Constable of Surrey Police v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 8 July 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0081.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757 Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, [2001] CP Rep 16, [1999] CPLR 779, [2000] PIQR P51 (CA) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1999/2251.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802 Sybron Corp v Barclays Bank plc [1985] Ch 299, [1984] 3 WLR 1055 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Szucs v Information Commissioner and UK Intellectual Property Office, Information Tribunal, 26 February 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0075.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 703 Szucs v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 16 August 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2013] EWCA Civ 25, [2013] 1 WLR 2515, [2013] 2 All ER 813, [2013] 1 Cr App R 27, [2013] HRLR 14 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/25.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 R (T) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 1115 (Admin), [2012] 1 WLR 2978 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/1115.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 790 Tamlin v Hannaford [1950] 1 KB 18, [1949] 2 All ER 327 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Taylor v Anderton, The Times, 21 October 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177, [1998] 3 WLR 1040, [1998] 4 All ER 801, [1999] EMLR 1 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1998/39.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342, 808, 809 Tenby Corp v Mason [1908] 1 Ch 457 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Territorial Forces Association v Philpot [1947] 2 All ER 376 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Tesco Stores v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759, [1995] 2 All ER 636, 93 LGR 403, (1995) 70 P & CR 184, [1995] 2 PLR 72 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1995/22.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 Thackeray v Information Commissioner and General Medical Council, First-tier Tribunal, 23 February 2010 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0063.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 Thackeray v Information Commissioner and Health Professions Council, First-tier Tribunal, 30 March 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697, 700 Thackeray v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 2 December 2011

lxvi

TABLES OF CASES www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2011_0069.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757

Theakston v MGN Ltd [2002] EWHC 137, [2002] EMLR 22

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/137.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816, 832, 837

Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195, [2003] QB 151, [2002] 3 WLR 247, [2002] 4 All ER 156, (2002) 166 JP 257, [2002] 1 CMLR 50, [2002] Eu LR 253 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/195.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 Thomas Marshall (Exports) Ltd v Guinle [1979] Ch 227, [1978] 3 WLR 116, [1978] 3 All ER 193, [1978] ICR 905, [1978] IRLR 174, [1979] FSR 208 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809, 839 Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 5) [2003] EWCA Civ 474, [2003] QB 1556 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/474.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (Disclosure) (No 4) [2002] EWCA Civ 1182, [2003] 1 WLR 210, [2002] 4 All ER 881, [2003] CP Rep 9, [2003] CPLR 181; reversing [2004] EWCA Civ 218, [2004] QB 916, [2004] 2 WLR 1065, [2004] 3 All ER 168 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1182.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 1 AC 1, [2001] UKHL 16, [2001] 2 All ER 513, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 125, (2001) 3 LGLR 36 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/16.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802 Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 6) [2004] UKHL 48, [2005] 1 AC 610, [2005] 4 All ER 948 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/48.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718-722 Tillery Valley Foods v Channel Four Television Corp [2004] EWHC 1075 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/1075.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 In re Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 2396, [2009] 1 WLR 1015 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/2396.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 In re Times Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA Crim 1926, [2008] 1 WLR 234 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/1926.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589 In re Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Crim 2396, [2009] 1 WLR 1015 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/2396.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 Tomalin v S Pearson & Son Ltd [1909] 2 KB 61 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Toms v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 19 June 2006

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0027.html . . . . . . 494, 521, 522, 531, 684, 685, 923

Toussaint v The Attorney General of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [2007] UKPC 48, [2007] 1 WLR 2825 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2007/48.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711 Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 10 November 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2006_0007.html . . 369, 474, 475, 494, 496, 523, 524, 528, 529, 531, 682, 684, 689, 923, 924 Transport for London v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 28 February 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/EA_2012_0127.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621, 622, 625 Secretary of State for Transport v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 5 May 2009 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2009/EA_2008_0052.html . . 198, 219, 220, 222, 223, 227, 229, 230, 522, 745, 748 Trott and Skinner v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 19 March 2013

www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i990/2013-03-19_Decision_EA-2012 -0195.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811

Trouw UK Ltd v Mitsui & Co plc [2007] EWHC 863 (Comm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Tuckley v Information Commissioner and Birmingham City Council, Information Tribunal, 28 February 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2006_0010.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364, 932 Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland [2006] UKHL 53, [2007] 1 AC 650, [2007] 2 All ER 273, [2007] HRLR 11, [2007] UKHRR 456, 22 BHRC 92 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/53.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 University of Central Lancashire v Information Commissioner and Colquhoun, Information Tribunal, 8

lxvii

TABLES OF CASES December 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758, 759, 845 University of Newcastle upon Tyne v Information Commissioner and British Union of Anti-Vivisectionists [2011] UKUT 185 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2011/185.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235, 362, 363, 454 Urmenyi v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Sutton, Information Tribunal, 13 July 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0093.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394, 406, 460, 922, 924 Uttlesford District Council v IC, FTT, 6 June 2012

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0269.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194, 195, 225

Van Natta v Information Commissioner and Metropolitan Police, First-tier Tribunal, 3 October 2011 . . . . . . 906 Vasiliou v Hajigeorgiou [2005] EWCA Civ 236, [2005] 1 WLR 2195, [2005] 3 All ER 17, [2005] CP Rep 27 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/236.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 Vellacott v Convergence Group plc, High Court, 3 February 2006 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Venables v News Group Newspapers [2001] Fam 430, [2001] 1 All ER 908 [2001] EMLR 10, [2001] 1 FLR 791, [2002] 1 FCR 333, [2001] HRLR 19, [2001] UKHRR 628, 9 BHRC 587, [2001] Fam Law 258 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2001/32.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769, 823, 831 Ventouris v Mountain [1991] 1 WLR 607, [1991] 3 All ER 472, [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council & ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1214, [2012] PTSR 185, [2010] UKHRR 1317, [2011] Eu LR 172 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1214.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101, 236, 295 R (Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd) v Nottinghamshire County Council [2009] EWHC 2382 (Admin), [2010] Env LR 12 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2382.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Visser v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Southwark, First-tier Tribunal, 11 January 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/EA_2012_0125.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Voyias v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Camden, First-tier Tribunal, 24 January 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/EA_2012_0096.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363, 364 Voyias v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Camden, First-tier Tribunal, 22 January 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/EA_2011_0007.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 W v Egdell [1990] Ch 359 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811 W v Westminster City Council [2005] EWHC 102, [2005] 4 All ER 96 (Note) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837 R Waldron (No1) [1986] QB 824, [1985] 3 WLR 1090, [1985] 3 All ER 775 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931, 941 Wales v Information Commissioner and Newcastle National Health Trust, Information Tribunal, 31 May 2006 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2006/EA_2005_0028.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922 Walker v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 21 October 2011

www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i940/EA-2012-0105_2012-11-13.pdf

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 215

Watkins v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 17, [2006] 2 AC 395, [2006] 2 WLR 807, [2006] 2 All ER 353 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/17.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Watling v Bird (William) & Son (Contractors) [1976] ITR 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929 Watts v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 20 November 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0022.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1979/2.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718

Waugh v Information Commissioner and Doncaster College, Information Tribunal, 29 December 2008 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2008_0038.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 787 Waugh v Information Commissioner and HMRC, Information Tribunal, 27 March 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873

lxviii

TABLES OF CASES Waugh v Information Commissioner and Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, First-tier Tribunal, 28 December 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/EA_2012_0145.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697, 699 Weait v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 17 July 2007

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0011.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915

Webster v James Chapman & Co [1989] 3 All ER 939 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808 Weir Pumps Ltd v CML Pumps Ltd [1984] FSR 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Weir v Secretary of State for Transport [2005] EWHC 2192 (Ch)

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/2192.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713

Weld-Blundell v Stephens [1920] AC 956 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767 Wensleydale Peerage Case (1856) 5 HLC 958 HL (Committee for Privileges); LJ 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866 West v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 25 October 2010

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2010_0120.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198, 225, 717

Westinghouse Electric Corp Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket 235 (No 2) [1978] AC 547, [1978] 2 WLR 81, [1978] 1 All ER 434, [1978] 1 CMLR 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Westland Helicopters Ltd v Arab Organisation for Industrialisation [1995] QB 282, [1995] 2 All ER 387, [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 608 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654 Whaley & Anor v Lord Advocate [2003] ScotCS 178

www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2003/178.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828

Williams v Home Office [1981] 1 All ER 1151 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742 Williams v Information Commissioner and Local Government Ombudsman, First-tier Tribunal, 24 October 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2012_0083.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717, 726 Wilover Nominees v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1974] 1 WLR 1342, [1974] 3 All ER 496 (CA); affirming [1973] 1 WLR 1393, [1973] 2 All ER 977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, [2003] 3 WLR 568, [2003] 4 All ER 97, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 491, [2003] HRLR 33, [2003] UKHRR 1085 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/40.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12, 516 Wilson v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 15 June 2010

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0082.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 6 December 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2012_0117.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 R (Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council) v Chief Schools Adjudicator [2001] ELR 574 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/635.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 Wise v Information Commissioner and Blackpool City Council [2013] UKUT 030 (AAC) www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/30.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905 Wise v Information Commissioner, First-Tier Tribunal, 3 February 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Wood v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [2004] EWCA Civ 1638, [2005] EMLR 20 (CA); affirming [2003] EWHC 2971, [2004] EMLR 17 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1638.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383, 387, 388 Wood v Leeds AHA (Training) [1974] ICR 535, [1974] IRLR 204, [1974] ITR 352 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568, 859 Woodford v Information Commissioner, First-tier Tribunal, 21 April 2010

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2010/2009_0098.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 225, 226, 725

Woodward v Hutchins [1977] 1 WLR 760, [1977] 2 All ER 751 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533, 816 Woolgar v Chief Constable of Sussex [2000] 1 WLR 25, [1999] 3 All ER 604, (2000) 2 LGLR 340, [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Med 335, (1999) 50 BMLR 296 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/1497.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342, 809 Department of Work & Pensions v Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, 5 March 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2006_0040.html . . 474, 483, 494, 497, 522, 524, 527, 530,

lxix

TABLES OF CASES 533, 731, 733, 738, 746, 747, 751, 754 Department of Work & Pensions v Information Commissioner and Zola, First-tier Tribunal, 17 May 2013 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0207.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846 E Worsley & Co Ltd v Cooper [1939] 1 All ER 290 (Ch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Wynn v Information Commissioner and Serious Fraud Office, First-tier Tribunal, 7 September 2012 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2012/2011_0084.html . . . . . . . . . 447, 684-686, 688, 689, 873 X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] UKHL 9, [1995] 2 AC 633, [1995] Fam Law 537, 94 LGR 313, [1995] 2 FLR 276, [1995] 3 WLR 152, (1995) 7 Admin LR 705, [1995] 3 FCR 337, [1995] 3 All ER 353 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1995/9.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822 X and Y (Children), Re [2004] EWHC 762, [2004] EMLR 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831 X v Information Commissioner [2010] UKUT 432 (AAC)

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2010/432.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927

X v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd [1991] 1 AC 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337, 520 R (X) v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [2004] EWCA Civ 1068, [2005] 1 WLR 65, [2005] 1 All ER 610 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1068.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387, 388 XL London Market Ltd v Zenith Syndicate Management Ltd [2004] EWHC 1182 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2004/1182.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Young v Information Commissioner and Dept for Environment for Northern Ireland, Information Tribunal, 12 December 2007 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2007/EA_2007_0048.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 226, 790 Zacharides v Information Commissioner and UK Sports Council, First-tier Tribunal, 4 April 2011 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2011/2010_0162.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817 The Zamora (No 1) [1916] 2 AC 77, (1916) 13 Asp 330, (1916) 85 LJ PC 89, (1916) 114 LT 626 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1916/1916_24.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619

European Union A v United Kingdom (2009) 49 EHRR 29 (EctHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 AKZO Chemie BV v EC Commission (C-53/85) [1986] ECR 1965, [1987] 1 CMLR 231, [1987] FSR 203 . . 385 Al-Nashif v Bulgaria (2003) 36 EHRR 655 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 Armioniene v Lithuania [2009] EMLR 7, (2009) 48 EHRR 53, 27 BHRC 389 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811 Arrowsmith v United Kingdom (1979) 19 DR 5 (ECommHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 (Case C-468/10) Asociacion Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Credito v Administracion del Estado [2012] 1 CMLR 48 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2011/C46810.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Case T-36/04 Association de la presse internationale asbl v EC Commission [2007] ECR II-3201 . . . . . . 116, 725 Case T–198/03 Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG v Commission [2006] ECR II-1429, [2006] 5 CMLR 10 . . . . . 120 Barry v France (App no 14497/89) 14 October 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101, 897 Case T-194/04 Bavarian Lager Co Ltd v EC Commission [2007] ECR II-4523, [2008] 1 CMLR 35 . . . . . . . . 116 Bavarian Lager Company Ltd [1999] ECR II–3217, [1999] 3 CMLR 544, [1999] CEC 543 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Bensaid v United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 208 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827

lxx

TABLES OF CASES Case T-331/11 Besselink v Council of the EU [2013] ECR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 Case T-121/05 Borax Europe Ltd v EC Commission (CFI 11 March 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116, 117, 500 Botta v Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 241 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517, 596 Brannigan and McBride v United Kingdom (1993) 17 EHRR 539 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 Brind v United Kingdom (1994) 18 EHRR CD 76 (ECommHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587 Case C–365/98 Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld [2002] 2 CMLR 36 . . . . . . . . . . 190 Brinks v Netherlands (App no 9940/04) (2005) 41 EHRR SE5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Carvel and Guardian Newspapers Ltd v Council of the European Union[1996] All ER (EC) 53, [1995] ECR II–2765, [1995] 3 CMLR 359, [1996] CEC 282 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Case C-473/12 Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers v Geoffrey Englebertat www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2013/C47312.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Chahal v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 413, 1 BHRC 40 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592, 620 Case C-553/07 College van burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam v Rijkeboer [2009] 3 CMLR 28 . . . 143, 149 Commission of the European Communities v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (C-139/07P) [2011] 1 CMLR 3 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2010/C13907.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Commission of the European Communities v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (C-139/07P) [2011] 1 CMLR 3, [2010] EUECJ C-139/07, [2011] Bus LR D81 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2010/C13907.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Copland v United Kingdom (App no 62617/00) (2007) 45 EHRR 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86, 827 Case C-280/11 P Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116, 117, 119 Joined Cases C-539/10 P and C-550/10 P Council of the European Union v European Commission (ECJ 15 November 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Craxi v Italy (No1) (2004) 28 EHRR 47 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517, 596 Dammann v Switzerland (no 77551/01), ECtHR, 25 April 2006

www,hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-75174 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Denkavit Nederland BV v Commission of the European Communities [2000] 3 CMLR 1014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland [2013] EUECJ (C-515/11) www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2013/C51511.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Devenney v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 24 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504, 516 Devlin v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 43 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504, 514, 516 Doorson v The Netherlands (1996) 22 EHRR 330 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 Edwards and Lewis v United Kingdom, [2003] Crim LR 891, (2005) 40 EHRR 24, (2003) 15 BHRC 189 . . . 592 Edwards v United Kingdom (App no 13071/87) (1992) 15 EHRR 417 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Eerikäinen v Finland, ECHR, 10 February 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Case T-344/08 EnBW Energie Baden-Wurttemberg v European Commission [2012] 5 CMLR 4 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2012/T34408.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116-118 Engel v The Netherlands (No 1) (1979–80) 1 EHRR 647 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587 Esbester v United Kingdom (1994) 18 EHRR CD 72 (ECommHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587, 616 European Commission v Bavarian Lager Co Ltd [2010] EUECJ C-28/08, [2010] ECR I-06055, [2011] Bus LR 867 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2010/C2808.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Fayed v United Kingdom (1994) 18 EHRR 393 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516, 517, 597 Fish Legal v The Information Commissioner United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water [2013]

lxxi

TABLES OF CASES EUECJ (C-279/12)

www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2013/C27912_O.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Fitt v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR 480 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 Flachglas Torgau GmbH, C-204/09 [2013] QB 212, [2012] Env LR 26, [2012] EUECJ C-204/09, [2012] 2 CMLR 17 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2012/C20409.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185, 204, 227 Folgero v Norway [2007] ECHR 546 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828 Foxley v United Kingdom (2001) 31 EHRR 25, 8 BHRC 571 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 Franchet v Commission of the European Communities [2006] 3 CMLR 37 . . . . . . . . 113, 114, 116-118, 500, 539 Gaskin v United Kingdom(1989) 12 EHRR 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 85, 88, 89, 97, 137, 517, 518, 596, 597, 898 Giacomelli v Italy (2007) 45 EHRR 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Gillberg v Sweden [2012] ECHR 569, 34 BHRC 247

www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/569.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 91, 93, 100

Gillberg v Sweden [2012] ECHR 569 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Glasenapp v Federal Republic of Germany (1987) 9 EHRR 25 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Case C–316/01 Glawischnig v Bundesminister für soziale Sicherheit und Generationen [2003] ECR I-5995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Golder v United Kingdom (1979–80) 1 EHRR 524 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516, 719 Goodwin v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881 Greek Case (1969) 12 YB 1 (ECommHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 Grigoriades v Greece (1999) 27 EHRR 464 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Guerra v Italy (App no 14967/89) (1998) 26 EHRR 357, 4 BHRC 63 . . . 87, 89-91, 94, 97, 99, 221, 517, 518, 596, 597 H v France (1990) 12 EHRR 74 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 Hadjianastassiou v Greece (1993) 16 EHRR 219 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587, 617 Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 734 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834 Haralambie v Romania (App no 21737/03) ECHR 21 January 2010

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-95302 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Hardy and Maile v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 28

www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/261.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 517

Heidi Hautala v Council of the European Union [2002] 1 WLR 1930, [2002] 1 CMLR 15, [2002] CEC 127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 109, 217, 500 Hewitt and Harman v United Kingdom (1992) 14 EHRR 657 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572, 617 Case C-135/11 P IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH v Commission (ECJ, 21 June 2012) www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2012/C13511_P.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Case C-64/05 IFAW gGmbH v European Commission [2008] QB 902 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds GmbH v Commission of the European Communities [2005] 1 WLR 1252, [2005] 2 CMLR 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Interporc Im und Export GmbH v Commission of the European Communities [1998] ECR II–231, [1998] 2 CMLR 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Ireland v United Kingdom (1979–80) 2 EHRR 25 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620, 621 Jasper v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR 441, [2000] Crim LR 586 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 Case 222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1987] QB 129 (ECJ) . . . 504, 505, 620 Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v Finland (2005) 41 EHRR 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828

lxxii

TABLES OF CASES Kenedi v Hungary (31475/05) [2009] ECHR 78, (2009) 27 BHRC 335 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/786.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 93, 94, 99, 102 KH v Slovakia (App no 32881/04) (2009) 49 EHRR 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 94 Klass v Germany (1979–80) 2 EHRR 214 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572, 587, 617 König v Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 170 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93, 516 Kosiek v Federal Republic of Germany (1987) 9 EHRR 328 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Kuijer v Council of the European Union (No 2) [2002] 1 WLR 1941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 109, 500, 539, 540, 660 Lawless v Ireland (No 3) (1961) 1 EHRR15 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium (1981) 4 EHRR 1 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 Leander v Sweden (App no 9248/81) (1987) 9 EHRR 433 . . . . . . . . . . . 86, 88-90, 99, 100, 518, 572, 587, 597, 617 Re Lindqvist (Approximation of Laws) [2004] QB 1014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Lithgow v United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 329 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517, 597 Loiseau v France (App No 46809/99) ECHR 18 November 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101, 897 Lopez Ostra v Spain (App no 16798/90) (1995) 20 EHRR 277 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Lustig-Prean and Beckett v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 548 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Malone v United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 14 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572 Mara Messina v Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECR II–3203, [2005] 2 CMLR 21 . . . . . 120 Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA [1990] ECR I-4135, [1993] BCC 421, [1992] 1 CMLR 305 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190, 504, 596 Marper v United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1581, (2009) 48 EHRR 50, 25 BHRC 557, 48 EHRR 50, [2009] Crim LR 355 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1581.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 142 Martin v United Kingdom (App no 27533/95) (1996) 21 EHRR CD112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Case C-353/01 Mattila v EC Commission [2004] ECR II-1073, [2004] 1 CMLR 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 McGinley and Egan v United Kingdom (App nos 21825/93 and 23414/94) (1999) 27 EHRR 1, (1999) 4 BHRC 421, (1998) 42 BMLR 123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 94, 221, 515, 517, 596, 897 Mecklenburg v Kreis Pinneberg der Landrat [1999] All ER (EC) 166, [1999] 2 CMLR 418[1999] All E.R. (EC) 166, [1998] ECR I-3809, [1999] Env LR D6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192, 357 MG v United Kingdom (App no 39393/98) [2002] 3 FCR 289, (2003) 36 EHRR 3, (2003) 13 BHRC 179 . . . . 85, 173, 517, 596 Micallef v Malta (App no 17056/06) ECHR 15 January 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101, 897 MM v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1906

www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1906.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 130

Munjaz v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1704

www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1704.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396, 407

Case T-144/05 Muñiz v EC Commission (CFI 18 December 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Murray v United Kingdom (1995) 19 EHRR 193 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587 Neimetz v Germany (1992) 16 EHRR 97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827 Netherlands v Council of the European Union [1996] ECR I–2169, [1996] 2 CMLR 996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Niemietz v Germany (1993) 16 EHRR 97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [1999] 1 CMLR 851 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675 Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department, unreported . . . . . . . 105 Observer and Guardian v United Kingdom (App no 13585/88) (1992) 14 EHRR 153 . . . . . . . . . . . . 89, 590, 593

lxxiii

TABLES OF CASES Océano Grupo Editorial v Rocio Murciano Quintero [2000] ECR I–449 (ECJ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504, 596 Odièvre v France (App no 42326/98) (2004) 38 EHRR 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Office of Communications v Information Commissioner (C-71/10) [2011] PTSR 1676, [2012] Env LR 7, [2011] EUECJ C-71/10, [2012] 1 CMLR 7 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2011/C7110.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197, 521 Omar v France (2000) 29 EHRR 210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881 Oneryildiz v Turkey (App no 48939/99) (2004) 39 EHRR 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89, 94, 596 Osman v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 245, [1999] 1 FLR 193, (1999) 11 Admin LR 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung eines wirtschaftlich gesunden land- und forstwirt-schaftlichen Grundbesitzes v Austria (App 39534/07) 28 November 2013 hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-139084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91-93 Peck v United Kingdom (Application No 44647/98) [2003] EMLR 15, (2003) 36 EHRR 41, 13 BHRC 669 . 827, 832 Petrie v Commission of the European Communities [2002] 1 CMLR 18, [2002] CEC 57 . . . . . . . . . 112, 116, 118 Case T-3/00 Pitsiorlas v EU Council [2007] ECR II-4779, [2008] 1 CMLR 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678 Postbank NV v Commission of the European Communities [1996] All ER (EC) 817, [1996] ECR II–921, [1997] 4 CMLR 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espana SAU (C-275/06) [2008] All ER (EC) 809, [2008] ECR I-271, [2008] 2 CMLR 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 R v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex p Gallagher [1995] ECR I–4253, [1996] 1 CMLR 557 . . . . 620 Rechnungshof v Österreichischer Rundfunk [2002] ECR I-4989, [2003] 3 CMLR 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142, 788 Reklos & Davourlis v Greece [2009] ECHR 200, [2009] EMLR 290 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828 Rekvényi v Hungary (2000) 30 EHRR 519 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Ringeisen v Austria (No 1) (1979–80) 1 EHRR 455 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 Roche v United Kingdom (App no 32555/96) (2006) 42 EHRR 30, 20 BHRC 99, (2006) 42 EHRR 30 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2005/926.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89, 90 Roche v United Kingdom (App no 32555/96) (2006) 42 EHRR 30, 20 BHRC 99 . . . . . 87, 89, 221, 515, 517, 596 Romanenko v Russia, ECHR, 8 October 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Rotaru v Romania (28341/95) (2000) 8 BHRC 449 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Rothmans International BV v Commissioner of the European Communities [1998] ECR II–2463, [1999] 3 CMLR 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Rowe and Davis v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR 1, 8 BHRC 325, [2000] Crim LR 584 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 S and Marper v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139, 828, 829 S v United Kingdom (App nos 30562/04 and 30566/04) [2008] ECHR 1581 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Samenwerkende Elektriciteits-Produktiebedrijven NV v EC Commission (C-36/92 P) [1994] ECR I-1911 . . . . 386 Case C-73/07 Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia [2008] ECR I-9831, [2010] All ER (EC) 213 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2008/C7307.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Schaller Volpi v Switzerland (App no 25147/94) 84 DR 106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 C-291/12 Schwarz v Stadt Bochum [2013]

www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2013/C29112.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Sciacca v Italy (2005) 43 EHRR 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828 Case T-187/03 Scippacercola v Commission of the European Communities [2005] ECR II-1029, [2005] 2 CMLR 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Sdruženi Jihočeské Matky v Czech Republic (App no 19101/03) ECHR 10 July 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

lxxiv

TABLES OF CASES Segerstedt-Wiberg v Sweden (App no 62332/00) (2007) 44 EHRR 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Shapovalov v Ukraine [2012] ECHR 1665

www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1665.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 92, 94, 100, 102, 516

Simmons v Department of Justice, 796 F 2d 709, 712 (4th Cir 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481, 623, 626 Sirdar v Secretary of State for Defence [1999] ECR I–7403 (ECJ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 Sison v Council of European Union [2005] ECR II–1429, [2005] 2 CMLR 29 . . . . . . . . . . 113-116, 119, 121, 661 Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617, 620 Socialist Party v Turkey (1999) 27 EHRR 51 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Solvay and ors v Region Wallone (Case C-182/10) [2012] 2 CMLR 19 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2012/C18210.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Axel Springer AG v Germany [2012] ECHR 227, (2012) 55 EHRR 6, (2012) 32 BHRC 493, [2012] EMLR 15 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/227.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 Standard Verlags GmbH v Austria (No 2) [2009] ECHR 853 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828 Stichting Natuur en Milieu & Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission [2012] EUECJ (Case T338/08) www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2012/T33808.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Stoll v Switzerland (App no 69698/01) ECHR 10 December 2007 (Grand Chamber) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979–80) 2 EHRR 245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814, 881 Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No 2) (1991) 14 EHRR 229 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590, 593 Svenska Journalistforbundet v Council of the European Union [1998] All ER (EC) 545, [1998] ECR II–2289, [1998] 3 CMLR 645 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 500 Sweden and API v Commission [2010] EUECJ C-514/07, [2011] 2 AC 359 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2010/C51407.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702 Syndicat CFDT des Etablissements et Arsenaux du Val-de-Marne and Vesque v France (App no 11678/85) 7 December 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101, 897 Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v European Commission (ECJ, 16 December 2010) . . . . . . . . 118 Tamosius v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR CD323 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v Hungary (2011) 53 EHRR 3, [2009] ECHR 618 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/618.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 102, 814 Társasága Szabadságjogokért (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union) v Hungary (App no 37374/05) ECHR 14 April 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90, 99 Taskin v Turkey (App no 46117/99) (2006) 42 EHRR 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 94, 221 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities [2007] 1 CMLR 39 . . . 117 Terezakis v European Commission (CFI 30 January 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113, 120 Case T-590/10 Thesing v European Central Bank [2013] 2 CMLR 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Thorgeirson v Iceland (App no 13778/88) (1992) ECHR 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 C-73/07 Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan [2010] All ER (EC) 213, [2008] ECR I-9831 . . . . . . . . 143, 147, 886 Tinnelly and Sons Ltd v United Kingdom (1999) 27 EHRR 249 . . . . . 503-505, 514, 516, 517, 592, 597, 620, 938 TP and KM v United Kingdom (App no 28945/95) (2001) 34 EHRR 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Transocean Marine Paint Association v EC Commission [1974] ECR 1063 (ECJ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 Case T-84/03 Turco v Council of the European Union [2004] ECR II–4061 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116, 118, 725 United Communist Party of Turkey v Turkey (1998) 26 EHRR 121 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Van Der Wal v Commission of the European Communities [2000] ECR I–1, [2002] 1 CMLR 16 . . . . . . . . . 109 Varec SA v. Belgium (C-450/06) [2009] All ER (EC) 772, [2008] ECR I-581, [2008] 2 CMLR 24 . . . . . . . 94, 386

lxxv

TABLES OF CASES VDSÖ and Gubi v Austria (1995) 20 EHRR 56 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Case T-301/10 Sophie in 't Veld v Council of the European Union www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2013/T30110.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 Case T-529/09 Sophie in 't Veld v Council of the European Union www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2012/T52909.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113-115, 663

Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Commission of the European Communities [2005] 1 WLR 3302, [2005] All ER (EC) 813, [2005] ECR II–1121, [2006] 2 CMLR 60, [2005] 4 CMLR 21 112, 115, 116, 500, 539 Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission (Environment) [2012] EUECJ (Case T-396/09) www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2012/T39609.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v The Netherlands (1995) 20 EHRR 189 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587 Vogt v Federal Republic of Germany (1996) 21 EHRR 205 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke and Eifert [2010] ECR I-11063 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2010/C9209.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 178 Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891 (ECJ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504, 596 Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822, 823, 828-831 Von Hannover v Germany (no 2) [2012] ECHR 228, (2012) 55 EHRR 15, [2012] EMLR 16, 32 BHRC 527 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/228.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Von Hannover v Germany (No 2) [2012] ECHR 228, (2012) 55 EHRR 15, [2012] EMLR 16, (2012) 32 BHRC 52 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/228.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835, 836 Von Hannover v Germany (No 3) [2013] ECHR 835, (App no 8772/10), 19 September 2013 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/835.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836 Weeks v United Kingdom (App no 9787/82) (1987) 10 EHRR 293 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Case T-42/05 Williams v EC Commission (CFI 10 September 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 World Wildlife Fund UK v Commission of the European Union [1997] ECR II–313, CFI . . . . . . . . . . . . 109, 500 (Case T–264/04) WWF European Policy Programme v European Union Council (ECJ 25 April 2007) . . . 113-116, 359 X and Y v The Netherlands (1985) 8 EHRR 235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 X v Federal Republic Germany (App no 8383/78) (1979) 17 DR 227 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 X v United Kingdom (1993) 15 EHRR CD 113 (EcommHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia (App no 48135/06) [2013] ECHR 584 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/584.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 92, 95, 100 Z v Finlandi (1997) 25 EHRR 371 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811, 828 Z v United Kingdom [2001] 2 FLR 612 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 Zana v Turkey (1999) 27 EHRR 667 (ECtHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 Zander v Sweden (1993) 18 EHRR 175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934

United States of America Abbotts v Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 766 F 2d 604 (DC Cir 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623, 627 Access Reports v Department of Justice, 926 F 2d 1192 (DC Cir 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

lxxvi

TABLES OF CASES ACLU v Department of State, No 11-01072, 4 (CKK) (DDC 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 ACLU v Dept of Justice, 681 F 3d 61, 71 (2d Cir 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 539, 595 ACLU v Dept of State, 878 F Supp 2d 215, 222 (DDC 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 ACLU v DOJ, 681 F 3d 61 (2d Cir 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 AFSHAR v Department of State, 702 F 2d 1125 (DC Cir 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481, 540, 623, 624, 848 Albuquerque Publishing Co v Department of Justice, 726 F Supp 851 (DDC 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 All Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition v Dept of Defense, 851 F Supp 2d 169 (DDC 2012) . . . . 40 Allen v CIA, 636 F 2d 1287, 1293 (DC Cir 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564 American Civil Liberties Union v Department of Justice, 265 F Supp 2d 20 (DDC 2003) . . 44, 595, 621, 626, 627, 633 American Communications Association v Dodds (1950) 339 US 382 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 American Friends Services Committee v Department of Defense, 831 F 2d 441 (3d Cir 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 American Jewish Congress v Kreps, 574 F 2d 624 (DC Cir 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Amnesty International USA v CIA, 728 F Supp 2d 479 (SDNY 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Animal Legal Defense Fund Inc v Department of the Air Force, 44 F Supp 2d 295 (DDC 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Arieff v Department of the Navy, 712 F 2d 1462 (DC Cir 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Armstrong v Executive Office of the President, 90 F 3d 553 (DC Cir 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Army v Dept of Defense, 562 F Supp 2d 590, 600 (SDNY 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Assassination Archives & Research Centre v CIA, 177 F Supp 2d 1 (DDC 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 Avondale Industries Inc v National Labor Relations Board, 90 F 3d 955 (5th Cir 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Badalementi v Department of State, 899 F Supp 542 (D Kan 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 Bartholdi Cable Co v Federal Communication Commission, 114 F 3d 274 (DC Cir 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Bassiouni v CIA, 392 F 3d 244 (7th Cir 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 Berliner, Zisser, Walter & Gallegos v US Securities and Exchange Commission, 962 F Supp 1348 (D Colo 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Berman v CIA, 378 F Supp 2d 1209 (ED Cal 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 Bevis v Department of State, 801 F 2d 1386 (DC Cir 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Billington v Department of Justice, 11 F Supp 2d 45 (DDC 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540, 624, 627, 651 Blanton v United States Department of Justice, 182 F Supp 2d 81 (DDC 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768 Bonner v Department of State, 928 F 2d 1148 (DC Cir 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Bowers v Department of Justice, 930 F 2d 350 (4th Cir 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 627 Brady-Lunny v Massey, 185 F Supp 2d 928 (CD Ill 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768 Brant Construction Co v Environmental Protection Agency, 778 F 2d 1258 (7th Cir 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Bureau of National Affairs, Inc v US Department of Justice 742 F (2d) 1484 (DC Cir 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 362 Cameranesi v Department of Defense, No C 12-0595 PJH (ND Cal 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Campaign for Family Farms v Glickman, 200 F 3d 1180 (8th Cir 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Campaign for Responsible Transplantation v FDA, 180 F Supp 2d 29 (DDC 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Campbell v Department of Justice, 164 F 3d 20(DC Cir 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Canning v Department of Justice, 848 F Supp 1037 (DDC 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 Carson v US Merit Sys Protect Bd, 2012 WL 2562370, *2 (ED Tenn 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Center for Auto Safety v National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 244 F 3d 144 (DC Cir 2001) . . . . . . 46

lxxvii

TABLES OF CASES Center for International Environmental Law v Office of US Trade Representative, 237 F Supp 2d 17 (DDC 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Center for National Security Studies v Department of Justice, 331 F 3d 918 (DC Cir 2003) . . . . . . . . . 47, 595, 619 Checkosky v US Securities and Exchange Commission, 23 F 3d 452 (DC Cir 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Chilivis v Security & Exchange Commission, 673 F 2d 12045 (11th Cir 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Chrysler Corp v Brown, 441 US 281 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 50, 430 CIA v Sims, 471 US 159 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 626 CNA Finance Corp v Donovan, 830 F 2d 1132 (DC Cir 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Coastal States Gas Corp v Department of Energy, 617 F 2d 854 (DC Cir 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 740 Cochran v United States, 770 F 2d 949 (11th Cir 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531 Columbia Packing Co v USDA, 563 F 2d 495 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531 Constangy, Brooks & Smith v National Labor Relations Board, 851 F 2d 839 (6th Cir 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Core v United States Postal Service, 730 F 2d 946 (4th Cir 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Cozen O'Connor v US Dept of Treasury, 570 F Supp 2d 749 (ED Pa 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Critical Mass Energy Project v Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 975 F 2d 871 (DC Cir 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 46 Crooker v Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 670 F 2d 1051 (DC Cir 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Dennis v CIA, 2012 WL 5493377 at *2 (EDNY 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Department of Defense v FLRA, 510 US 487 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Department of Justice v Landano, 508 US 165 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 49, 532 Department of Justice v Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 US 749 (1989) . . 40, 47, 48, 368, 532 Department of Justice v Tax Analysts, 492 US 136 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Department of State v Ray, 502 US 164 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Department of State v Washington Post Co, 456 US 595 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Department of the Air Force v Rose, 425 US 352 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 47 Department of the Interior v Klamath Water Users Protective Association, 532 US 1 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Department of the Navy v Egan, 484 US 518(1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 Dirksen v Department of Health and Human Services, 803 F 2d 1456 (9th Cir 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Doherty v Department of Justice, 775 F 2d 49 (2nd Cir 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626, 627 Doherty v US Department of Justice, 596 F Supp 423 (SDNY 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 Dow Jones & Co v Department of Justice, 917 F 2d 571 (DC Cir 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Doyle v US Department of Justice, 668 F 2d 1365 (DC Cir 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 368 Durns v Bureau of Prisons, 804 F 2d 701 (DC Cir 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368, 532 Edmonds v US Department of Justice, 405 F Supp 2d 23 (DDC 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 595 Electronic Privacy Information Centre v National Security Agency, 678 F 3d 926 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Environmental Protection Agency v Mink, 410 US 73 (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 532, 626 Federal Trade Commission v Grolier Inc, 462 US 19 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Fensterwald v CIA, 443 F Supp 667 (DDC 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Fiduccia v Department of Justice, 185 F 3d 1035 (9th Cir 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Fitzgibbon v CIA, 911 F 2d 755 (DC Cir 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 Forsham v Califano, 587 F 2d 1128 (DC Cir 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368, 532 Forsham v Harris 445 US 169 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

lxxviii

TABLES OF CASES Fortson v Harvey, 407 F Supp 2d 13 (DDC 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Friedman v Secret Service, 923 F Supp 2d 262 (DDC 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Frugone v CIA, 169 F 3d 772 (DC Cir 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534, 633 Fund for Constitutional Government v National Archives & Records Service, 656 F 2d 856 (DC Cir 1981) . . . . 47 Gardels v CIA, 689 F 2d 1100 (DC Cir 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 534, 627, 633 Getman v National Labor Relations Board, 450 F 2d 670 (DC Cir 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Gilmore v Department of Energy, 4 F Supp 2d 912 (ND Cal 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Goldberg v Department of State, 818 F 2d 71 (DC Cir 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 627 Greenberg v United States Department of Treasury, 10 F Supp (2d) at 23–24 (DDC 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 Gregory v Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, 631 F 2d 986 (DC Cir 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp v Renegotiation Board, 425 F 2d 578 (DC Cir, 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Hale v Department of Justice, 973 F 2d 894, 902 (10th Cir 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 532 Halperin v CIA, 629 F 2d 144 (DC Cir 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 45, 539, 595, 627 Hamilton v Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co (1919) 251 US 146 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Hayden v National Security Agency, 608 F 2d 1381 (DC Cir 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 626 Heggestad v Department of Justice, 182 F Supp 2d 1 (DDC 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc v Department of the Navy, 891 F 2d 414 (2d Cir 1989) . . . . . . . . . . 624, 627 Hunt v CIA, 981 F 2d 1116 (9th Cir 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 Irwin Memorial Blood Bank v American National Red Cross, 640 F 2d 1051 (9th Cir 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Jaffe v CIA, 573 F Supp 377 (DDC 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 James Madison Project v CIA, 605 F Supp 2d 99 (DDC 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Jan-Xin Zang v FBI, 756 F Supp 705 (WDNY 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 Jean-Pierre v BOP, 880 F Supp 2d 95 (DDC 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 John Doe Agency v John Doe Corp, 493 US 146 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Jordan v Department of Justice, 591 F 2d 753 (DC Cir 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 740 Judicial Watch v Department of Health and Human Services, 27 F Supp 2d 240 (DDC 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Judicial Watch v Secret Service No 11-5282 (DC Cir 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Judicial Watch, Inc v Department of Energy, 412 F 3d 125 (DC Cir 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Julian v United States Department of Justice, 806 F 2d 1411 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 Kennecott Utah Copper Corp v Department of the Interior, 88 F 3d 1191 (DC Cir 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Kidd v Dept of Justice, 362 F Supp 2d 291 (DDC 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 King v Department of Justice, 586 F Supp 286 (DDC 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626, 627 King v Department of Justice, 830 F 2d 210 (DC Cir 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 Kissinger v Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 US 136 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Krikorian v Department of State, 984 F 2d 461 (DC Cir 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42, 43, 627, 651, 847 LA Times Communications v Department of the Army, 442 F Supp 880 at 899 (CD Cal 2006) . . . . . . . . 619, 768 Larson v Department of State, 565 F3d857 (DC Cir 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Lawyers Comm. for Human Rights v INS, 721 F Supp 552 (SDNY 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623, 627 Lead Industry Association v OSHA, 610 F 2d 70 (2d Cir 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 Lindsey v Bureau of Prisons, 736 F 2d 1462 (11th Cir 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

lxxix

TABLES OF CASES Lissner v Customs Service, 241 F 3d 1220 (9th Cir 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Luzaich v United States (1977) 435 F Supp 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688 Lykins v Department of Justice, 725 F 2d 1455 (DC Cir 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 Maine v Department of the Interior, 285 F 3d 126 (1st Cir 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Makky v Chertoff, 489 F Supp 2d 421 (DNJ 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Mandel Grunfeld & Herrick v United States Customs Service, 709 F 2d 41 (11th Cir 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Mapother v Dept of Justice, 3 F3d 1533 (DC Cir 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 754 Maricopa Audubon Society v United States Forest Service, 108 F 3d 1082 (9th Cir 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 541 Martin v Office of Special Counsel, 819 F 2d 1181 (DC Cir 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Maydak v Department of Justice, 218 F 3d 760 (DC Cir 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Maynard v CIA, 986 F 2d 547 (1st Cir 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 627 McDonnell Douglas Corp v Department of the Air Force, 375 F 3d 1182 (DC Cir 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 McDonnell Douglas Corp v NASA, 180 F 3d 303 (DC Cir 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Mead Data Center Inc v Department of the Air Force, 566 F 2d 242 (DC Cir 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Medina-Hincapie v Department of State, 700 F 2d 73 (DC Cir 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 Mehl v Environmental Protection Agency, 797 F Supp 43 (DDC 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 Merit Energy Co v Department of the Interior, 180 F Supp 2d 1184 (D Colo 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Military Audit Project v Casey, 656 F 2d 724 (DC Cir 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 Miller v Casey, 730 F 2d 773 (DC Cir 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534, 627, 633 Miller v Department of Justice, 562 F Supp. 2d 82, 102 (DDC 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Miller v Department of State, 779 F 2d 1378 (8th Cir 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 627 Minier v CIA, 88 F 3d 796 (9th Cir 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 Mobil Oil Corp v Environmental Protection Agency, 879 F 2d 698 (9th Cir 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 49, 481 Mobley v CIA, 924 F Supp 2d 24 (DDC 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Montrose Chemical Corp v Train, 491 F 2d 63, 66 (DC Cir 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754 Moore v FBI, 883 F Supp 2d 155, 164 (DDC 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Morley v CIA, 508 F3d 1108 (DC Cir 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Na Iwi O Na Kupuna v Dalton, 894 F Supp 1397 (D Haw 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Nation Magazine v United States Customs Service, 71 F 3d 885 at 892 (DC Cir 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 47 National Labor Relations Board v Robbins Tire & Rubber Co (1978) 437 US 214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 15, 47, 49 National Labor Relations Board v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 421 US 132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41, 46, 740 National Parks & Conservation Association v Morton, 498 F 2d 765 (DC Cir 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 National Security Archive Fund, Inc v CIA, 402 F Supp 2d 211 (DDC 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 627 National Security Archive v FBI, 759 F Supp 872 (DDC 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 Nationwide Building Maintenance Inc v Sampson, 559 F 2d 704 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 Natoinal Archives and Record Administration v Favish, 541 US 157 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 47, 48 Natural Resources Defense Council v Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 216 F 3d 1180 (DC Cir 2000) . . . . . . . 49 Neely v FBI, 208 F 3d 461 (4th Cir 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532 Neufeld v Inland Revenue Service, 646 F 2d 661 at 663 (DC Cir 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Nichols v United States, 325 F Supp 130 (D Kan 1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

lxxx

TABLES OF CASES North Dakota ex rel Olson v Department of the Interior, 581 F 2d 177 (8th Cir 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 NY Times Co v NASA, 920 F 2d 1002 (DC Cir 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 O'Rourke v Department of Justice, 684 F Supp 716 (DDC 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 Oglesby v Department of the Army, 920 F 2d 57 (DC Cir 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 50, 543, 628 Olmstead v United States, 277 US 438 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 O’Rourke v US Department of Justice, 684 F Supp 716 (DDC 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 Patterson v FBI, 893 F 2d 595 (3d Cir 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 Petroleum Information Corp v Department of the Interior, 976 F 2d 1429 (DC Cir 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Pfeiffer v CIA, 721 F Supp 337(DDC 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624, 627 PHE Inc v Department of Justice, 983 F 2d 249 (DC Cir 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Phillippi v CIA, 546 F 2d 1009 (DC Cir 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 626, 627, 633 Pollack v Department of Justice, 49 F 3d 115 (4th Cir 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Pope v USA (1979) 599 F 2d 1383 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688, 689 Public Citizen Health Research Group v Department of Health, Education & Welfare, 668 F 2d 537 (DC Cir 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Public Citizen Health Research Group v FDA, 953 F Supp 400 (DDC 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 Public Citizen Health Research Group v Food and Drugs Administration) 704 F 2d 1280 (DC Cir 1983) . . . . . 45 Public Citizen v Department of State 11 F 3d (DC Cir 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 624 Public Citizen v Department of State, 276 F 3d 634 (DC Cir 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 Public Citizen v Department of State, 787 F Supp 12 (DDC 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 Public Citizen v Farm Credit Administration, 938 F 2d 290 (DC Cir 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Public Education Center Inc v Department of Defense, 905 F Supp 19 (DDC 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626, 627 Quiñon v FBI, 86 F 3d 198 (DC Cir 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Ray v Turner, 587 F 2d 1187 (DC Cir 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 626 Rockwell International v Department of Justice, 235 F 3d 598 (DC Cir 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Rodriguez-Cervantes v HHS, 853 F Supp 2d 114 (DDC 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Rosenfeld v Department of Justice, 57 F 3d 803 (9th Cir 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 Rugiero v Department of Justice, 257 F 3d 534 (6th Cir 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 50 Ruotolo v Department of Justice, 53 F 3d 4 (2d Cir 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Russell v Department of the Air Force, 682 F 2d 1045 (DC Cir 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 740 SafeCard Services v US Securities and Exchange Commission, 926 F 2d 1197 (DC Cir 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Salisbury v United States, 690 F 2d 966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539, 595, 624 Savada v Department of Defense, 755 F Supp 6 (DDC 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Save the Dolphins v Department of Commerce, 404 F Supp 407 (ND Cal 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Schiffer v FBI 78 F 3d 1405 (9th Cir 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 Schiller v National Labor Relations Board, 964 F 2d 1205 (DC Cir 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Schoenman v FBI, 575 F Supp 2d 136 (DDC 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Schrecker v Department of Justice, 74 F Supp 2d 26 (DDC 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 Scott v CIA, 916 F Supp 42 (DDC 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626, 628 Sherman v Department of the Army, 244 F 3d 357 (5th Cir 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 47 Simon v Department of Justice, 980 F 2d 782 (DC Cir 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

lxxxi

TABLES OF CASES Skelton v United States Postal Service, 678 F 2d 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41, 46 Solar Inc v United States, 142 F 3d 1033 (7th Cir 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Solar Sources Inc v United States, 142 F 3d 1033 (7th Cir 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Spannaus v Department of Justice, 942 F Supp 656 (DDC 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Spirko v United States Postal Service, 147 F 3d 992 (DC Cir 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Spurlock v FBI, 69 F 3d 1010 (9th Cir 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Steinberg v Department of Justice, 801 F Supp 800 (DDC 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623, 624, 651 Stone v Export-Import Bank of US, 552 F 2d 132 (5th Cir 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Students Against Genocide v Department of State, 257 F 3d 828 (DC Cir 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 44, 627 Taylor v Appleton, 30 F 3d 1365 at 1367 (11th Cir 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Taylor v Department of the Army, 684 F 2d 99 (DC Cir 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539, 595, 627 Trans-Pac Policing Agreement v United States Customs Service, 177 F 3d 1022 at 1028 (DC Cir 1999) . . . . . . . 43 Trueblood v Department of the Treasury, 943 F Supp 64 (DDC 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Truitt v Department of State, 897 F 2d 540 (DC Cir 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 United States Department of Justice v Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 US 749 . . . 13, 40, 47, 368, 532 United We Stand Am v Inland Revenue Service, 359 F 3d 595 (DC Cir 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Vaughn v Rosen 484 F 2d 820 (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Viotti v United States Air Force, 902 F Supp 1131 (D Colo 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Voinche v FBI, 46 F Supp 2d 26 (DDC 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 Washington Post v Department of Health and Human Services, 690 F 2d 252 (DC Cir 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Washington Post v Department of Justice, 863 F 2d 96 (DC Cir 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Weatherhead v United States, 157 F 3d 735 (9th Cir 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 Weatherhead v United States, 527 US 1063 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650, 847 Weisberg v Department of Justice, 705 F 2d 1344 (DC Cir 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42, 49, 50, 428 Weissman v CIA, 565 F 2d 692 (DC Cir 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 Wheeler v CIA, 271 F Supp 2d 132 (DDC 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 Wiener v FBI, 943 F 2d 972 (9th Cir 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 Willens v NSC, 726 F Supp 325 (DDC 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 Wolf v CIA, 473 F3d 370 (DC Cir 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 627 Wolfe v Department of Health and Human Services, 839 F 3d 768 (DC Cir 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 754 Yeager v Drug Enforcement Administration, 678 F 2d 315 (DC Cir 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Young v CIA, 972 F 2d 536 (4th Cir 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 49, 627

Australia A v Hayden [1984] HCA 67, (1984) 156 CLR 532 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587, 620 AA and Bureau of Meteorology [2013] AICmr 46 at [13]

www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AICmr/2013/46.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659

Aarons and Australian Archives (1986) 12 ALD 155 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565

lxxxii

TABLES OF CASES Accident Compensation Commission v Croom [1991] 2 VR 322 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 499 Accredited (Wholesale Tobacco) Distributors Pty Ltd v Griffiths [2003] VSC 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741 Actors’ Equity Association of Australia and Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No 2) (1985) 7 ALD 584 . 539, 595 Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses Incorporated v Commonwealth of Australia (1943) 67 CLR 116 . . 644 Altman v Family Court of Australia (1992) 15 AAR 236 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882, 884 Anderson and Australian Federal Police (1987) 11 ALD 356 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768 Anderson and Department of Special Minister of State (1984) 7 ALN N155 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Angel and Department of Art, Heritage and Environment (1985) 9 ALD 113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Ansell Rubber Co Pty Ltd v Allied Rubber Industries Pty Ltd [1967] VR 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809, 839 Anti-Fluoridation Association of Victoria v Secretary to the Department of Health (1985) 8 ALD 163 . . . . . . . 428 Apache Re Apache Energy Pty Ltd and National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (2012) 57 AAR 123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 58 Arnold (on behalf of Australians for Animals) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1987) 73 ALR 607 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 57 Arnold Bloch Leibler & Co and Australian Taxation Office (No 2) (1985) 4 AAR 178, 9 ALD 7 . . . . . . . . . 55, 691 Arnold v Queensland (1987) 73 ALR 607 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 499, 538, 669 Ascic v Australian Federal Police (1986) 11 ALN N184 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 Attorney General (UK) v Heinemann Publishers Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 86, 75 ALR 353 . 492, 529, 812, 819 Attorney-General (Northern Territory) v Kearney (1985) 158 CLR 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723 Attorney-General’s Department v Cockroft (1986) 10 FCR 180, 64 ALR 97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 538 Austin v Deputy Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department (1986) 67 ALR 585 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Australian Broadcasting Corp v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth [1951] HCA 5, (1951) 83 CLR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620, 645 Australian Doctors Fund Ltd v Commonwealth (1994) 49 FCR 478, 34 ALD 451 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508 Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance (1997) 141 ALR 545 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723 Baker v Campbell (1983) 49 ALR 385 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717, 720 Barkhordar and Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority (1987) 12 ALD 332 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 362, 499 Bartle and Secretary, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1998) 28 AAR 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Baueris v Commonwealth of Australia (1987) 75 ALR 327 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Bayliss and Department of Health and Family Services (1997) 48 ALD 443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 628 Beesley v Australian Federal Police [2001] FCA 836 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Bennett v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service [2003] FCA 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 722 Bienstein v Attorney-General [2010] FCAFC 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Bienstein v Family Court of Australia [2008] FCA 1138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 52 Binnie and Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs [1989] VR 836 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538, 768 Birch and Attorney-General’s Department (1994) 33 ALD 675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Birrell v Department of Premier and Cabinet [1988] VR 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Bleicher v Australian Capital Territory Health Authority (1990) 12 AAR 246 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Boehm and Department of Industry Technology and Commerce (1985) 7 ALN N186 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768 Bracken and Minister of State for Education and Youth Affairs (1984) 2 AAR 406, (1985) 7 ALD 243 . . . . . . . 508

lxxxiii

TABLES OF CASES British American Tobacco Australia Ltd v Secretary, Dept of Health and Ageing (2011) 195 FCR 123 . . . . . . . 56 Bui and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2005) 85 ALD 793 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 659 Burns v Australian National University (No 1) (1984) 1 AAR 456 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 532 Burns v Australian National University (No 2) (1985) 7 ALD 425 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532 Callejo and Department of Immigration and Citizenship [2010] AATA 244 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 57 Carindale Country Club Estate Pty Ltd v Astill (1993) 42 FCR 307, 115 ALR 112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812 Carter v The Managing Partner, Northmore Hale Davy & Leake (1995) 183 CLR 121 . . . . . . . . . . . 722, 723, 727 Carver and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (1987) 6 AAR 317, 12 ALD 447 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Castrol Australia Pty Ltd v Emtech Associates Pty Ltd (1980) 33 ALR 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533 Centerlink v Dykstra [2002] FCA 1442 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769 Central Exchange Ltd v Anaconda Nickel Ltd [2001] WASC 128 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Chapman and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 23 AAR 142, 43 ALD 139 . . . . 57 Chu v Telstra Corporation (2005) 147 FCR 505 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Re CKI Transmission Finance and Australian Taxation Office (2011) 85 ATR 337 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 CKI Transmission Finance (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Taxation Office (2011) 123 ALD 378 . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Cleary and Department of the Treasury (1993) 18 AAR 83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508, 741 Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corp (1991) 29 FCR 429, 100 ALR 111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Collection Point Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] 212 FCR 184 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Collie and Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 45 ALD 556 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 369 Comcare v Foster [2006] FCA 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Commissioner of Police v District Court of New South Wales (1993) 31 NSWLR 606 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 57, 499 Commonwealth of Australia v Dutton (2000) 102 FCR 168 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Commonwealth of Australia v Hittich (1994) 53 FCR 152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 565, 624, 659, 848 Commonwealth of Australia v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763, 819 Commonwealth v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2000) 98 FCR 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749 Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1993) 176 CLR 604 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749 Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Collector of Customs (1987) 14 FCR 434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 813 Coulthard v South Australia (1995) 63 SASR 531 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 Dale and Australian Federal Police (1997) 47 ALD 417 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Daniels Corp v Accc [2002] HCA 49, (2002) 194 ALR 561 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720 Dawson v The Commonwealth (1946) 73 CLR 157 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Day v Collector of Customs (1995) 130 ALR 106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 54, 59 Department of Community Services v Jephcott (1987) 15 FCR 122 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 535, 688 Department of Industrial Relations v Burchill (1991) 33 FCR 122, 14 AAR 408, 105 ALR 327 . . . . . . . . . . . . 508 Department of Industrial Relations v Forrest (1990) 21 FCR 93, 91 ALR 417 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 507 Department of Premier and Cabinet v Birrell (No 2) [1990] VR 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Department of Social Security v Dyrenfurth (1988) 80 ALR 533 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] VR 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 57, 523, 526, 531 Dunn and Department of Defence [2004] AATA 1040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595

lxxxiv

TABLES OF CASES Dwyer and Department of Finance (1985) 8 ALD 474 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 Dyki and Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 12 AAR 544, 22 ALD 124 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Eccleston and Dept of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs (1993) 1 QAR 60 . . . . . . . . . . 499, 741 Edelsten and Australian Federal Police (1985) 4 AAR 220, 9 ALN N65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 55, 365, 565 Egan v Chadwick [1999] NSWCA 176, (1999) 46 NSWLR 563 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748, 749 Egan v Willis [1998] HCA 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Environment Centre NT and Department of the Environment, Sport & Territories (1994) 35 ALD 765 . . . 54, 57 Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 168 ALR 123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman (1985) 183 CLR 10, 128 ALR 391 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 Ewer and Australian Archives (1995) 38 ALD 789 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539, 595 Farey v Burvett (1916) 21 CLR 433 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Swiss Aluminium Australia Ltd (1986) 66 ALR 159 . . . . . . . . . . 56, 499, 871 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v United Aircraft Corp (1944) 68 CLR 525 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 Fewster and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (No 2) (1987) 13 ALD 139 . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 57, 628, 741 General Manager, Workcover Authority of New South Wales v Law Society of New South Wales [2006] NSWCA 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741 George v Rocket (1990) 170 CLR 104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 Gersten v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 61 ALD 445 . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 624, 628, 848 Gill v Department of Industry Technology and Resources [1987] VR 681 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58, 845 Green and Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corp (1992) 28 ALD 655 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 Guy and Department of Transport (1987) 12 ALD 358 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Hamden v Campbell (No 2) (2012) 57 AAR 189 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Haneef and Australian Federal Police [2009] AATA 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Harrigan v Department of Health (1986) 72 ALR 293 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corp (1983) 78 FLR 236, 50 ALR 551 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56-58, 530, 741 Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corp (No 2) (1984) 51 ALR 581 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 754 Hocking and Department of Defence (1987) 12 ALD 554 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769 Horesh and Ministry of Education [1986] 1 VAR 143 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 Howard and the Treasurer (Cth) (1985) 3 AAR 169 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 526, 741 Information Commissioner for Western Australia v Ministry of Justice [2001] WASC 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 Intercontinental Packers Ltd v Canada (Minister of Agriculture) (1987) 14 FTR 142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 Jarvie v Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Brunswick [1995] 1 VR 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 495 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Kamenka and Australian National University (1992) 15 AAR 297 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 58, 741 Kavvadias v Commonwealth Ombudsman (1984) 1 FCR 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499 Kavvadias v Commonwealth Ombudsman (1984) 52 ALR 728 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 871 Re Lobo and Department of Immigration (2011) 56 AAR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 54-56 Lodkowski v Comcare (1998) 53 ALD 371 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 Lordsvale Finance Ltd and Department of the Treasury (1985) 3 AAR 301, AAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 53, 367, 480 Loughman v Altman (1992) 39 FCR 90, 111 ALR 445 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 362 Low and Department of Defence (1984) 2 AAR 142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539, 595

lxxxv

TABLES OF CASES Luton and Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 22 AAR 492 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429, 458 Maher and Attorney-General’s Department (1985) 3 AAR 396 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 628, 659, 848 Mann and Australian Taxation Office (1985) 3 AAR 261 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 565 Mann and Capital Territory Health Commission (1983) 5 ALN N368 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1986) 6 ALD 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 McKenzie v Secretary to the Department of Social Security (1986) 65 ALR 645 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45 (2006) 229 ALR 187 . . . 54, 507, 508, 523, 741, 758 McKnight and Australian Archives (1992) 28 ALD 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 539, 595 Mickelberg and Australian Federal Police (1984) 6 ALN N176 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v Department of Transport (1986) 12 FCR 156, 68 ALR 626 . . . . . . . . . . 53, 431 Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (No 2) (1984) 156 CLR 414 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 Motor Trades Association of Australia v Trade Practices Commission (1993) ATPR 41–201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Murphy and Australian Electoral Commission (1994) 33 ALD 718 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 58, 691 Murtagh v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 54 ALR 313 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 57, 365, 741 NAIH of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2002) 124 FCR 223 . . . . . . . 357 National Tertiary Education Industry Union v Commonwealth of Australia [2001] FCA 610, (2001) 111 FCR 583 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749 News Corp Ltd v National Companies and Securities Commission (1984) 1 FCR 64, 52 ALR 27 . . . . 54, 57, 499, 871 News Corp Ltd v National Companies and Securities Commission (1984) 57 ALR 550 . . . . . . . . . . 54, 56, 59, 538 Northern Australian Aboriginal Legal Service v Bradley [2001] FCA 1080 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749 Organon (Australia) Pty Ltd and Department of Community Services and Health (1987) 13 ALD 588 . . . . . . . 845 Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2008] HCA 37, (2008) 234 CLR 27 . . . 10, 11, 13, 15, 499, 724, 726 O’Chee v Rowley [1997] QCA 401, (1997) 150 ALR 199 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713 O’Donovan and Attorney-General’s Department (1985) 4 AAR 151, 8 ALD 528 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 565, 659, 848 O’Sullivan and Family Court of Australia (1997) 47 ALD 765 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 O’Sullivan v Farrer (1989) 168 CLR 210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523 Parisi and Australian Federal Police (1987) 14 ALD 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 56, 769 Paul v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 113 FCR 396 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 Pfizer Pty Ltd and the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services (1993) 30 ALD 647 . . . . . . . 845 PMT Partners Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 328 . 737 Porter and Department of Community Services and Health (1988) 14 ALD 403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 508 Public Service Board v Wright (1986) 160 CLR 145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 499 Radar Investments and Health Insurance Commission (2004) 80 ALD 733 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 Rae and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (1986) 12 ALD 589 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 741 Redfern and the University of Canberra (1995) 38 ALD 457 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 52, 413 Reith and Minister of State for Aboriginal Affairs (1988) 14 ALD 430 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 55, 57 Reithmuller and Australian Federal Police (1985) 8 ALN N92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 Robinson and Department of Foreign Affairs (1986) 11 ALN N48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539, 595, 624 Russell Island Development Association Inc and Department of Primary Industries and Energy (1994) 33

lxxxvi

TABLES OF CASES ALD 683 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 369, 463 Said and Dawkins (1993) 30 ALD 242 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531, 742, 762, 763 Scholes v Australian Federal Police (1996) 44 ALD 299 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768 Searle Australia Pty Ltd v Public Interest Advocacy Centre (1992) 36 FCR 111, 108 ALR 163 . 54, 56, 58, 59, 499, 538, 839, 842, 845 Secretary to the Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls [1999] 3 VR 331 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade v Whittaker [2005] FCAFC 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing v iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd (2010) 191 FCR 573 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 54 Secretary, Department of Health v Proudfoot (1993) 114 FLR 384 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Secretary, Department of Workplace Relations & Small Business v The Staff Development & Training Centre Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 382 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 58 Shergold v Tanner [2002] HCA 19, (2002) 188 ALR 302 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508 Sims v Wran [1984] 1 NSWLR 317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough (1975) 132 CLR 473 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523 Slater and Cox (Director General, Australian Archives) (1988) 15 ALD 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539, 565, 659, 848 Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Aust) Ltd v Secretary, Department of Community Services and Health (1990) 22 FCR 87, 95 ALR 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813, 819 Sobh v Police Force of Victoria [1994] 1 VR 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 499 Staff Development and Training Centre and Secretary, Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (2000) 30 AAR 330 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 845 Stenhouse v Coleman (1944) 69 CLR 457 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644 Stolpe and Department of Foreign Affairs (1985) 9 ALD 104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 628 Subramanian and Refugee Review Tribunal (1997) 44 ALD 435 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Re Sullivan and Department of Industry, Science and Technology (1996) 23 AAR 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Swiss Aluminium and Department of Trade (1985) 9 ALD 243 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 SZECF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1200 . . . . . . . . . . . 357 Telstra Corp Ltd and Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy [2010] AATA 118 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Throssell and Australian Archives (1986) 10 ALD 403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539, 595, 660, 848 Throssell and Department of Foreign Affairs (1987) 14 ALD 296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539 Toohey and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (1985) 9 ALN 94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Tooheys Limited v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (1961) 105 CLR 602 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 Toomey v Mirror Newspapers (1985) 1 NSWLR 173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 Secretary, Department of Treasury and Finance v Kelly [2001] VSCA 246 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 University of Melbourne v Robinson [1993] 2 VR 177 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 VAF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 206 ALR 471 . . . . . . . . . . . 357 VBN and Prudential Regulatory Authority (No 5) (2006) 92 ALD 259 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 Vice-Chancellor Macquarie University v FM [2005] NSWCA 192 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 Victorian Casino and Gambling Authority v Hulls [1998] 4 VR 718 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Victorian Chamber of Manufacturers v The Commonwealth of Australia (1943) 67 CLR 335 . . . . . . . . . 644, 645 WAGP of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2002) 124 FCR 276 . . . . . . 357

lxxxvii

TABLES OF CASES Wallace v Health Commission of Victoria [1985] VR 403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 368 Wang and Department of Employment, Education and Training (1988) 15 ALD 497 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 628, 659 Ward and Secretary, Department of Industry and Commerce (1983) 8 ALD 324 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 368 Waterford and Department of Health (1983) 5 ALN N139 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 482 Waterford and Department of the Treasury (No 2) (1984) 1 AAR 1, 5 ALD 588 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Waterford and Department of Treasury (1983) 5 ALD 193 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482 Waterford and the Treasurer of the Commonwealth (No 2) (1985) 8 ALN N37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508, 672 Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 723 Williams and Registrar, Federal Court of Australia (1985) 8 ALD 219, 3 AAR 529 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Win v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 56, (2001) 105 FCR 212 . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 Woolworths v Fels [2002] HCA 50, (2002) 193 ALR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 Young v Wicks (1986) 13 FCR 85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Canada 131 Queen Street Limited v Attorney-General [2007] FC 347 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Andersen Consulting v Canada [2001] 2 FC 324 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Attorney-General of Canada and Hartley v Information Commissioner of Canada [2002] FCT 128 . . . . . . . . . 67 Bellemare v Canada (Attorney-General) [2000] FCT 429 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Bland v Canada (National Capital Commission) [1991] 3 FC 325 (TD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Blank v Canada (Minister of Environment) [2006] FC 1253 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice) [2009] FC 1221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Bombardier v Canada (Public Service Commission) (1990) 44 FTR 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Brookfield Lepage Johnson Controls Facility Management Services v Minister of Public Works and Government Services [2004] FCA 214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Burns Meats Ltd v Canada (Minister of Agriculture) (1987) 14 FTR 137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 C v C [2007] WTLR 753 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 Canada (Attorney-General) v Canada (Information Commissioner) [2000] FCA 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Canada (IC) v Canada (Prime Minister) [1993] 1 FC 427 (TD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Cultural Property Export Review Board) [2001] FCT 1054 . . . 70 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Immigration Appeal Board) [1988] 3 FC 477 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] FCA 270 . . 70, 73, 690 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [1999] FCJ No 522, QL FCA . . 74 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of External Affairs) [1989] 1 FC 3, 32 Admin LR 265 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68, 494 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of External Affairs) [1990] 3 FC 514 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [1990] 3 FC 22 . . . . . . . . . 73, 566 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) [2013] FCA 104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [2011] SCC 25 . . . . . . . . . . 68, 70 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) [2001] 3 FC 70, [2001]

lxxxviii

TABLES OF CASES FCA 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Solicitor General) [1988] 3 FC 557 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission [1986] 3 FC 413 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Canada (Information Commissioner) v Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board [2006] FCA 157 [2007] 1 FCR 203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Canada (Minister of Environment) v Canada (Information Commissioner) [2003] FCA 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Canada (Minister of Environment) v Canada (Information Commissioner) [2000] FCJ No 480 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Canada (Minister of Health & Welfare) v Merck Frosst Canada & Co [2005] FCA 215 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v Blood Trive Department of Health [2008] 2 SCR 574 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720 Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v Canada (Labour Relations Board) [1996] 3 FC 609, (1996) 118 FTR 1 . . . 362 Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Industry) [2002] 1 FC 421 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Canada Packers Inc v Canada (Minister of Agriculture) [1989] 1 FC 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 71, 538 Canada Post Corp v Canada (Minister of Public Works) [1993] 3 FC 320 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 361, 538, 839 Canada Post Corp v Canada (Minister of Public Works) [1995] 2 FC 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 67, 361 Canadian Broadcasting Commission v National Capital Commission (1998) 147 FTR 264 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 Canadian Council of Christian Charities v Canada (Minister of Finance) [1999] 4 FC 245 . . . . . . . 72-74, 672, 740 Canadian Jewish Congress v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1996] 1 FC 268 . . . . . . . 72, 74 Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council v Minister of National Revenue [2003] FC 1037 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Cistel Technology Inc v Canada (Correctional Service) [2002] FCT 253 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 71 Creighton v Canada (Superintendent of Financial Institutions) [1990] FCJ No 353, QL (FCTD) . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Cyanamid Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1992) 45 CPR (3d) 390 . . . . 71, 540, 543 Dagg v Canada (Minister of Finance) [1997] 2 SCR 403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 67, 699 Do-ky v Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) [1999] FCJ No 673, QL (FCA) . . 566, 663, 848 Dzevad Cemerlic MD v Canada (Solicitor General) [2003] FCT 133, (2003) 228 FTR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566 Federation des Producteurs v Canadian Food Inspection Agency [2007] FC 704 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Geophysical Service Inc v Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board [2003] FCT 507 . . . . . . . . . . 69, 70 Glaxo Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) [1990] 1 FC 652 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432 Glaxo Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare) (1992) 41 CPR (3d) 176 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Goodis v Ontaria 2006 SCC 31, [2006] 2 SCR 32, 271 DLR (4th) 407 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 Gordon v Minister of Health [2008] FC 258 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Heinz Co of Canada Ltd v Attorney-General [2006] 1 SCR 441, 2006 SCC 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Heinz Company of Canada Ltd v Attorney-General of Canada [2006] FCA 378 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Hunter v Canada (Consumer and Corporate Affairs) [1991] 3 FC 186 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Information Commissioner v Minister for National Defence [2009] FCA 175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Information Commissioner v Minister of Industry [2002] FCA 212, (2002) 284 DLR (4th) 293 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Information Commissioner v Minister of the Environment [2007] 3 FCR 125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Information Commissioner v Royal Canadian Mounted Police [2003] 1 SCR 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 369 Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [2001] FCT 556 . . . . . . . . . . 69, 71 Lavigne v Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) [2000] FCJ 1412, QL FCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690

lxxxix

TABLES OF CASES Maislin Industries Ltd v Minister for Industry, Trade & Commerce [1984] 1 FC 939 . . . . . . . 69, 71, 74, 494, 500 Matol Botanical International Inc v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare) (1994) 84 FTR 168 . 70, 71, 839 Merck Frosst Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health and Welfare) (1988) 20 FTR 73 . . . . . . . 70, 538, 839, 843 Merck Frosst Canada Ltd v Canada (Minister of Health) [2012] SCC 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 71 Minister of Health v Merck Frosst Canada Ltd [2009] FCA 166 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 71 Minister of Justice v Blank [2006] SCC 39, [2006] 2 SCR 319, (2006) 270 DLR (4th) 257 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Minister of Public Works and Government Services v The Hi-Rise Group Inc [2004] FCA 99, (2004) 238 DLR (4th) 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Montana Band of Indians v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) [1989] 1 FC 143 (TD), 51 DLR (4th) 306 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Ottawa Football Club v Canada (Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sports) [1989] 2 FC 480 (TD) . . . . . 67, 71, 538 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP v Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) [2001] FCT 1040 . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 71 Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v Canadian Museum of Nature (1995) 63 CPR (3d) 449 . 72 Prud’homme v Canada (Canadian International Development Agency) (1994) 85 FTR 302 . . . . . . . . . . . . 71, 369 R v Brown (2000) 210 DLR (4th) 341 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722, 727 R v Dunbar and Logan (1982) 138 DLR (3d) 221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722, 727 R v Gray (1992) 74 CCC (3d) 267) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 R v McClure (2001) 195 DLR (4th) 513 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722, 727 Robertson v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1987) 13 FTR 120 (FCTD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Rubin and President of CMHC (1987) 36 DLR (4th) 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Rubin v Canada (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp) [1989] 1 FC 265 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 74, 494 Rubin v Canada (Clerk of the Privy Council) [1993] 2 FC 391 [1994] 2 FC 707 (1996) 179 NR 320, SCC

70, 73, 690

Rubin v Canada (Minister of Finance) (1987) 9 FTR 317, 35 DLR (4th) 517 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Rubin v Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) [2001] FCT 440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Rubin v Canada (Minister of Transport) [1998] 2 FC 430, (1997) 154 DLR (4th) 414 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698, 699 Rubin v Canada (Solicitor General) (1986) 1 FTR 157 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Rubin v Canada (Solicitor General) (2000) 187 DLR (4th) 675 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494, 495 Ruby v Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) [1998] 2 FC 351 (TD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539 Ruby v Canada (Solicitor General) [2000] 3 FC 589 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539 Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd v Canada (Minister of Supply and Services) (1990) 67 DLR (4th) 315 . . . . . . . 71, 432 Sheldon Blank & Gateway Industries v Canada (Minister of Environment) [2001] FCA 374 . . . . . . . . . . 69, 72, 74 Sherman v Minister of National Revenue [2003] FCA 202 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 849 Société Gamma Inc v Canada (Secretary of State) (1994) 79 FTR 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 71, 838 St Joseph Corp v Canada (Public Works and Government Services) [2002] FCT 274 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Stevens v Canada (Prime Minister) [1998] 4 FC 89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] 1 SCR 3, 208 DLR (4th) 1, 37 Admin LR (3d) 159 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 Ternette v Canada (Solicitor General) [1992] 2 FC 75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566 Twinn v Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) [1987] 3 FC 368 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 Weiler v Canada (Minister of Justice) [1991] 3 FC 617 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

xc

TABLES OF CASES Wells v Canada (Minister of Transport) (1995) 63 CPR (3d) 201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Wyeth-ayerst Canada Inc v Canada (Attorney-General) [2002] FCT 133 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 70 X v Canada (Minister of National Defence) (1992) 58 FTR 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73, 74, 428, 566 X v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [1991] 1 FC 670 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 X v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [1992] 1 FC 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73, 566 Yaeger v National Parole Board [2008] FCA 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Yeager v Canada (Correctional Service) [2003] FCA 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

New Zealand Aldous v Auckland City Council [1990] DCR 385 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Attorney General and Gow v Leigh [2011] NZSC 106

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713

Attorney General for England and Wales v Television New Zealand Ltd (1999) 44 IPR 123 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . 576 Attorney General for England and Wales v ‘R’ [2002] 2 NZLR 91 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 Attorney General for the United Kingdom v Wellington Newspapers Limited [1988] 1 NZLR 129 . . . . . 523, 820 Attorney-General v Davidson [1994] 3 NZLR 143 (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Auckland Regional Council v North Shore City Council [1995] 3 NZLR 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738 In the matter of C [2005] NZLR 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Holmes [2013] NZHC 672 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61, 62 Commissioner of Police v District Court at Manukau [2007] NZHC 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman [1985] 1 NZLR 578 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60, 61, 357, 492, 495 Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman [1988] 1 NZLR 385 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60, 61, 63, 358, 492, 495, 498, 538 Cornelius v Commissioner for Police [1998] 3 NZLR 373 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Commissioner of Police [2008] NZHC 1286 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Gravatt v Auckland Coroner’s Court [2013] NZHC 390 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Herewini v Ministry of Transport [1992] 3 NZLR 482 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Leach v Ministry of Transport [1993] 1 NZLR 106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Mafart and anor v Television New Zealand [2006] NZCA 183 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Nicholl v Chief Executive of the Department of Work and Income [2003] 3 NZLR 426 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Police v Keogh [2000] 1 NZLR 736 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 R v Craig [1975] 1 NZLR 597 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722, 727 R v Harvey [1991] 1 NZLR 242 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60, 358 R v Uljee [1982] 1 NZLR 561 at 576–577 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723 Ross v Tarnaki City Council [1990] DCR 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Television New Zealand Ltd v Ombudsman [1992] 1 NZLR 106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Wyatt Co (NZ) Ltd v Queenstown-Lakes District Council [1991] 2 NZLR 180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65, 431, 498

xci

TABLES OF CASES

Republic of Ireland Attorney General v Hamilton [1993] 2 IR 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748 Deely v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75, 80 EH v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 58, [2001] 2 IR 463 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 77, 79, 737 Gannon v Information Commissioner [2007] IEHC 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Health Service Executive v Information Commissioner [2008] IEHC 298 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 79, 500 Kruse v Information Commissioner [2009] IEHC 286 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Minister for Agriculture and Food v Information Commissioner [2000] 1 IR 309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 80, 500 Minister for Education & Science v Information Commissioner [2008] IEHC 279 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Minister for Education and Science v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 80 Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment v Information Commissioner [2006] IEHC 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 National Maternity Hospital v Information Commissioner [2007] 3 IR 643 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 P v Information Commissioner [2009] IEHC 574 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 79 Rotunda Hospital v Information Commissioner [2009] IEHC 315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78-80, 737 RTE v Information Commissioner [2004] IEHC 113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Sheedy v Information Commissioner [2005] 2 IR 272 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 74, 78, 80 South Western Area Health Board v Information Commissioner [2005] IEHC 177, [2005] 2 IR 547 . . . . . . . . 80

xcii

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION Freedom of Information Act 2000

Pt I … 355, 435 Pt II … 4, 7, 263, 265, 271–2, 422, 473, 482, 488, 492, 601, 633, 670, 683, 917 Pt IV … 894–5, 899, 941–4 Pt VI … 205 s 1 … 100, 200, 246, 260–1, 354–5, 363, 366, 384, 451, 454, 494, 497, 608, 647, 749, 778, 789, 918 s 1(1) … 4, 260, 263, 376, 409, 417, 419, 421, 423–4, 439–40, 444, 447, 452, 454, 459–61, 464–5, 472, 478, 493, 516, 917 s 1(1)–(2) … 292 s 1(1)(a) … 6, 29, 148, 264, 267, 429, 501, 510, 514, 516, 544, 622, 635, 640, 666, 706, 843, 903, 911, 914 s 1(1)(b) … 6, 149, 385, 501, 510, 514, 516, 544, 622, 708, 870, 903, 911, 914 s 1(2) … 4, 260, 385, 440, 456, 516, 914 s 1(2)–(4) … 215 s 1(3) … 391, 415, 420, 454, 456 s 1(4) … 200, 364–5, 474, 611 s 1(5) … 6, 267, 272, 422 s 1(6) … 6, 29 s 2 … 4, 354, 516, 563, 699, 723, 757–8, 914–15 s 2(1) … 7, 11, 29, 31, 422, 440, 472, 486, 520, 526, 534, 614, 764, 781, 847 s 2(1)–(2) … 434, 797 s 2(1)(a) … 7, 457, 484, 629 s 2(1)(b) … 457, 484, 495, 548, 550, 552–3, 624, 629, 647, 662, 672, 678, 682, 686, 706, 771, 844, 851, 856, 863, 923 s 2(2) … 7, 11, 31, 191, 219, 227, 385, 422, 440, 472–3, 479, 486, 520–1, 525–6, 528, 650, 718 s 2(2)-(3) … 292 s 2(2)(a) … 457, 608, 629, 870 s 2(2)(b) … 7, 30, 457, 495, 528, 548, 550, 552–3, 614–15, 624, 629, 640, 647, 662, 666, 672, 678, 682, 685, 696, 699, 705, 745, 771, 838, 843–4, 846, 850, 856, 863, 923 s 2(3) … 7, 190, 217, 483, 513–14, 614, 688, 701, 703–4, 803, 856–8, 863 s 2(3)(b) … 608 s 2(3)(d) … 708 s 2(3)(e) … 731, 755 s 2(3)(ea) … 857 s 2(3)(f) … 778–9, 781, 794

s 2(3)(f)(ii) … 779–80, 793 s 2(3)(g) … 797 s 2(3)(h) … 591, 870 s 3 … 557, 867 ss 3-7 … 270 s 3(1)(a)(i) … 369, 675 s 3(1)(a)(ii) … 370 s 3(1)(b) … 370 s 3(2) … 137, 361, 363 s 3(2)(a) … 372, 702 s 3(2)(b) … 454 s 4 … 575 s 4(1) … 373, 377, 381 s 4(2)-(3) … 375 s 4(2)(a) … 373 s 4(2)(b) … 373 s 4(3)(a) … 373 s 4(3)(b) … 373 s 4(4) … 375 s 4(5) … 375 s 4(6) … 374 s 4(7) … 32, 373, 380 s 4(9) … 509 s 5 … 751 s 5(1) … 377 s 5(1)(a) … 377 s 5(1)(b) … 377 s 5(2) … 377 s 5(3) … 377 s 6(1) … 378 s 6(2)(a) … 378 s 6(2)(b) … 378 s 6(3) … 378, 509 s 7 … 138, 204 s 7(1) … 375 s 7(2) … 374 s 7(3) … 374–5 s 7(4) … 375 s 7(5) … 377 s 7(6) … 378 s 7(7)–(8) … 382 s 7(8) … 378 s 8 … 7, 466

xciii

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 8(1) … 208, 391, 394, 409 s 8(1)(a) … 410 s 8(1)(b) … 411–12 s 8(1)(c) … 413 s 8(2) … 411 s 9 … 416, 516, 914 s 9(1) … 8, 417 s 9(2) … 419, 457 s 9(3) … 416–17 s 9(5) … 6, 416 s 10 … 420, 461, 914, 916, 918, 924 s 10(1) … 272, 420–2, 424–6, 429, 487, 911 s 10(2) … 419–20, 422, 424–6 s 10(3) … 274, 422–3, 458, 462, 487, 492 s 10(3)(a) … 422 s 10(4) … 423 s 10(6) … 420, 422 s 10(6)(a) … 421 s 10(6)(b) … 421 s 11 … 200, 272–3, 463, 546, 914, 917–18 s 11(1) … 200, 418, 465–8 s 11(1)(a) … 466–7 s 11(1A) … 464, 468 s 11(1)(b) … 211, 464, 466 s 11(1)(c) … 211, 467 s 11(2) … 468 s 11(3) … 468 s 11(4) … 464, 468 s 11A … 469 s 11A(3)-(7) … 469 s 11A(8) … 469 s 11B … 469 s 12 … 208, 215, 459, 516, 911, 914, 916, 924 s 12(1) … 391, 439, 457 s 12(2) … 439 s 12(3) … 441 s 12(4) … 398, 442 s 12(5) … 153, 159, 440 s 13 … 208, 361, 914 s 13(1) … 159, 391, 420, 439, 444 s 13(1)(b) … 481 s 13(3) … 6, 420, 444 s 14 … 215, 448–9, 451, 458, 516, 911, 914, 916, 924 s 14(1) … 268, 447, 456 s 14(2) … 159, 208, 451, 457 s 15 … 260, 270, 918

xciv

s 15(1)–(2) … 271–2 s 15(2)(a) … 7 s 15(3) … 273 s 15(4) … 260, 269, 424, 903 s 15(5) … 262, 269–70, 424, 903 s 16 … 778, 914, 916, 918 s 16(1) … 389, 391, 414, 459–60 s 16(2) … 414 s 17 … 422, 458, 478–80, 492, 916–18, 924 s 17(1) … 12, 423, 460–2, 482, 487, 535, 911 s 17(1)(a) … 460 s 17(1)(b) … 459–61, 609, 634 s 17(1)(c) … 460, 546, 876, 911, 917 s 17(2) … 267, 274, 423, 462, 494 s 17(3) … 273–4, 369, 461–2, 487, 911, 917 s 17(3)(a) … 7 s 17(3)(b) … 528 s 17(4) … 6, 273–4, 461–2 s 17(5) … 444, 451–2, 459–60, 609, 911 s 17(6) … 459 s 17(6)(b) … 459 s 17(7) … 911 s 17(7)(a) … 459–61, 912 s 18 … 479 s 18(1) … 8, 891 s 18(2) … 900 s 19 … 918 s 19(1) … 400, 402, 497, 545 s 19(1)(a) … 894 s 19(1)(b) … 406 s 19(2) … 400 s 19(2A)-(2F) … 401 s 19(2A)(a) … 401 s 19(2A)(b) … 401 s 19(3) … 497, 528 s 19(4) … 405 s 19(8) … 401 s 20(1) … 894 s 21 … 4, 7, 29, 216, 265, 351, 391, 406, 476, 542, 544–5, 547, 551, 553, 716 ss 21-44 … 482 s 21(1) … 169, 206, 217, 281, 401, 473, 483, 489, 531, 542 s 21(2)(b) … 292, 544, 546 s 21(3) … 545 s 22 … 6, 29, 265, 406, 509, 534, 549 s 22(1) … 401, 473, 485, 489, 548

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 22(1)(a) … 549 s 22(1)(c) … 369 s 22(2) … 29, 476, 611, 614 s 23 … 22, 265, 351–2, 502, 507, 518, 557, 561, 563, 565, 571, 591, 608–9, 611–13, 628, 633, 635–6, 862 ss 23-24 … 506, 509 ss 23-26 … 556, 561 s 23(1) … 30, 217, 473, 483, 489, 502, 563, 608, 634, 636, 903 s 23(2) … 9, 30, 501–3, 505, 509, 511–12, 514, 517, 628–9, 631, 639, 903, 915, 926, 931 s 23(3) … 30, 501, 509, 567–9, 580, 582–3, 586, 605, 613, 903, 926 s 23(3)(a)–(c) … 570 s 23(3)(b) … 502 s 23(3)(d) … 570 s 23(3)(e) … 561 s 23(3)(e)–(j) … 570 s 23(3)(k)–(m) … 570 s 23(3)(m) … 567 s 23(3)(o) … 570, 585 s 23(4) … 612 s 23(5) … 6, 29, 476, 608, 611, 614, 633, 635–6 s 24 … 22, 161, 265, 351, 502, 506, 518, 557, 560–2, 609, 612, 614, 622–5, 628, 633, 635–6, 638–9, 641, 644, 647, 903 s 24(1) … 224, 473, 485, 491, 634, 903 s 24(1)–(2) … 614, 639 s 24(2) … 29, 475, 615, 633, 635–6, 903 s 24(3) … 30, 218, 501–3, 505, 509–14, 517, 615, 629, 631, 639, 903, 915, 926–7, 931 s 24(3)-(4) … 9 s 24(4) … 509–11, 629, 631, 926 s 25 … 7, 9 s 25(3) … 502, 509–11, 629, 631, 926 s 26 … 22, 265, 557, 562, 612, 635, 640–3, 646 s 26(1) … 6, 30, 171, 221, 224, 473, 485, 488, 491, 535, 563, 640–2 s 26(2)(b) … 643 s 26(3) … 29, 476, 614, 640 s 27 … 22, 265, 635, 644, 647, 669 s 27(1) … 6, 30, 221, 224, 473, 485, 488, 491, 535, 649, 651–2, 848 s 27(1)(b) … 655 s 27(1)(c) … 655 s 27(2) … 485, 489, 651–2, 655, 665, 847–8 s 27(3) … 170, 848 s 27(4) … 6, 29, 664–5

s 27(4)(a) … 476, 614 s 27(4)(b) … 476, 611, 614, 851 s 27(5) … 653–4, 656, 848 s 28 … 33, 264, 399, 666–70 s 28(1) … 6, 30, 216, 473, 485, 488, 491, 535, 665–6 s 28(2) … 569, 671 s 28(2)(b) … 667 s 28(2)(d) … 666–8 s 28(3) … 29, 267, 476, 614, 666 ss 28–35 … 29, 534 s 29 … 265, 673 s 29(1) … 6, 30, 216, 221, 473, 485, 488, 491, 535, 671 s 29(1)(b) … 675 s 29(2) … 29, 476 s 29(3) … 614 ss 29–31 … 617 s 30 … 351, 695, 884 s 30(1) … 216, 264, 351, 473, 485, 489, 683, 685, 691, 699 s 30(1)(a) … 683 s 30(1)(b) … 684 s 30(1)(c) … 684, 880, 883 s 30(2) … 265, 351, 473, 687 s 30(2)(a)(i) … 687, 690 s 30(2)(a)(ii) … 687, 690 s 30(2)(a)(iii) … 690 s 30(2)(a)(iv) … 700 s 30(2)(b) … 687–8, 700 s 30(3) … 29, 264, 475, 614 s 30(5) … 684 s 30(6) … 687 s 31 … 266, 351, 695, 698, 884 s 31(1) … 30, 216, 221, 226, 267, 473, 476, 485, 488, 491, 532, 535, 696 s 31(1)(a) … 162, 684, 690 s 31(1)(b) … 162, 684, 690, 883 s 31(1)(c) … 701, 880, 882–3 s 31(1)(d) … 162, 695 s 31(1)(e) … 695 s 31(1)(f) … 696 s 31(1)(g) … 696–7 s 31(1)(h) … 701 s 31(1)(i) … 701 s 31(2) … 30, 265, 696, 701 s 31(2)(a) … 697 s 31(2)(b) … 697 s 31(2)(c) … 697

xcv

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 31(2)(d) … 167, 697 s 31(2)(e) … 697 s 31(2)(f)–(h) … 167, 697 s 31(2)(i) … 163, 697 s 31(2)(i)–(j) … 167 s 31(2)(j) … 163, 697 s 31(3) … 29, 614 s 32 … 29, 264, 534, 682, 695, 880 s 32(1) … 217, 473, 483, 489, 701 s 32(2) … 217, 473, 475, 483, 490, 703 s 32(3) … 29, 264, 614, 704 s 32(4) … 703 s 32(4)(a) … 701 s 33 … 29, 264, 534, 704 s 33(2) … 6, 30, 221, 473, 485, 488, 491, 535, 705 s 33(3) … 29, 267, 476, 488, 614, 706 s 34 … 170, 266, 513, 518, 710, 712, 714–15, 717 s 34(1) … 30, 217, 473, 483, 490, 708, 717 s 34(2) … 29, 475, 501, 614, 708 s 34(3) … 9, 30, 502, 505, 509, 513–14, 517, 629, 915, 921, 931–2 s 34(3)–(4) … 716 s 34(4) … 502, 513 s 35 … 22, 264, 549, 610, 731, 733–4 s 35(1) … 216, 473, 485, 490 s 35(1)(a) … 736, 738, 742 s 35(1)(b) … 736, 748 s 35(1)(c) … 729, 736 s 35(1)(d) … 736 s 35(2) … 168, 195, 736, 738, 751 s 35(3) … 29, 264, 475, 614, 736, 754 s 35(4) … 6, 168, 195, 528, 605, 736, 753 s 35(5) … 729, 736–7, 747, 750 s 36 … 22, 33, 229, 264, 514, 518, 549, 731–2, 734, 737, 746, 751, 755 s 36(1) … 514 s 36(1)(a) … 733, 755 s 36(2) … 6, 30, 217, 221, 228, 473, 484–5, 488, 491, 501, 514, 535, 741, 754, 759 s 36(2)(a) … 755 s 36(3) … 29, 267, 476, 614, 764 s 36(4) … 168, 759 s 36(5) … 757 s 36(5)(d)–(e) … 502, 514 s 36(7) … 6, 9, 30, 501–2, 505, 509, 514, 517, 629, 754–5, 915, 921, 931–2 s 37 … 22, 869 s 37(1) … 473, 486, 490, 856, 858–9, 861, 863–4,

xcvi

868 s 37(1)(a) … 33, 264, 856–7, 861, 868 s 37(1)(a)-(ab) … 484 s 37(1)(a)-(ad) … 861–2, 868 s 37(1)(aa) … 857 s 37(1)(ab) … 857 s 37(1)(ac) … 857, 860 s 37(1)(ac)-(ad) … 863 s 37(1)(ad) … 857, 861 s 37(1)(b) … 266, 863–5, 868–9 s 37(2) … 29, 264, 475, 614, 856, 863 s 38 … 266, 351, 767 s 38(1) … 6, 30, 221, 473, 486, 488, 491, 535 s 38(1)(a) … 163–4 s 38(1)(b) … 224 s 38(2) … 29, 476, 614, 765 s 39 … 29, 231, 266, 440, 482, 534, 551, 553, 558, 766, 775, 857, 864, 880 s 39(1) … 473, 486, 490, 552–3 s 39(1)(a) … 190, 552, 799, 851 s 39(1)(b) … 552–3 s 39(2) … 475, 614 s 39(3) … 29 s 40 … 29, 125, 231, 266, 313, 383, 460, 534, 774, 777, 880, 882 ss 40-41 … 868 s 40(1) … 126, 217, 473, 484, 490, 532, 777, 779 s 40(2) … 130, 142, 169–70, 473, 775, 777, 781, 789, 792, 800, 820, 934 s 40(2)–(4) … 126, 800 s 40(2)–(7) … 779 s 40(2)(a) … 779 s 40(3) … 6, 780–1, 789 s 40(3)–(4) … 775 s 40(3)(a)(i) … 130, 217, 232, 484 s 40(3)(a)(ii) … 232 s 40(3)(b) … 130, 217, 232, 484, 780, 793 s 40(3)(b)(ii) … 793 s 40(4) … 130, 169–70, 232, 794 ss 40–41 … 868 s 40(4)(b) … 476 s 40(5) … 29, 775 s 40(5)(a) … 475 s 40(5)(b)(i) … 781, 793–4 s 40(5)(b)(ii) … 794 s 40(7) … 778–9, 781, 820 s 41 … 29, 266, 351–2, 383, 437, 534, 804, 810, 812, 815, 820, 832, 872, 874, 876, 880, 882

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 41(1) … 6, 170, 216–17, 235, 473, 484, 490, 797, 817, 820–1, 838, 853 s 41(1)(b) … 800, 848 s 41(2) … 29, 475, 614, 797, 803 s 42 … 29, 264, 534, 695, 723, 750, 880 s 42(1) … 170, 216, 225, 473, 486, 490, 717 s 42(2) … 6, 29, 267, 475, 611, 614, 718, 728–9 s 43 … 33, 216, 264, 383, 879–80, 882 s 43(1) … 6–7, 221, 235, 473, 486, 490–1, 838 s 43(2) … 30, 221, 235, 473, 481, 486, 488, 491, 535, 540, 844, 846 s 43(3) … 29, 267, 476, 614, 844, 846 s 44 … 29, 266, 534, 601–2, 695, 875 s 44(1) … 6, 216–17, 437, 473, 484, 490, 870, 877 s 44(1)(a) … 131, 385, 591, 875, 883 s 44(1)(b) … 878–9 s 44(1)(c) … 880–1, 883–4 s 44(2) … 29, 475, 614 s 45 … 8, 395, 397, 427, 911, 917, 933 ss 45-46 … 406 s 45(1) … 392–3 s 45(2) … 6 s 45(2)(a) … 392 s 45(2)(e) … 911 s 45(3) … 397 s 45(4) … 395, 895 s 45(5) … 395 s 46 … 8, 366, 395, 894, 915, 917 s 46(3) … 528 s 46(5) … 395 s 46(5)(b) … 895 s 46(6) … 395 s 46(7) … 395 s 47 … 899 ss 47-49 … 239 s 47(1) … 393, 395, 894 s 47(2) … 894 s 47(3) … 894, 899 s 47(5) … 894 ss 47–56 … 895 s 47(6) … 899 s 48 … 894, 899 s 48(1) … 394, 396, 407 s 48(3) … 396 s 48(4) … 396 s 49 … 894, 914 s 49(1) … 892

s 50 … 213, 237, 397, 459–61, 898, 915, 921, 931–2, 941 ss 50-56 … 899 s 50(1) … 8, 209, 238, 394, 397, 913, 917, 919, 931 s 50(2) … 917 s 50(2)(a) … 912–13 s 50(3)–(4) … 9 s 50(3)(a) … 917 s 50(3)(b) … 903, 917 s 50(4) … 876, 915–17 s 50(5) … 917 ss 50–56 … 894, 941–4 s 51 … 239, 896, 937, 942 s 51(1) … 238, 903, 917 s 51(1)(b) … 397, 899 s 51(3) … 918 s 51(4) … 918 s 51(5) … 918 s 51(6) … 918 s 51(7) … 238, 917 s 51(8) … 355, 359, 472, 611, 917 s 52 … 9, 405–6, 914, 942 s 52(1) … 31, 405, 903, 918 s 52(2) … 918 s 52(3) … 918 s 53 … 501, 915, 920, 931 s 53(1) … 919 s 53(1)(b) … 31 s 53(2) … 31, 512, 919, 921, 931–2 s 53(2)–(3) … 9 s 53(3) … 919 s 53(6) … 9, 919 s 53(7) … 6, 919 s 53(8) … 31, 919 s 54 … 240 s 54(1) … 942 s 54(2) … 942 s 54(3) … 942 s 55 … 899, 943 s 56(1) … 931, 941–2 s 57 … 238, 609, 900, 917–18, 921–2, 924–5, 931, 934, 942 s 57(1) … 9, 903, 921–2, 931 s 57(2) … 903, 922 s 57(3) … 903 s 58 … 875, 907, 942 s 58(1) … 238, 921, 923, 925–6

xcvii

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 58(2) … 474, 917, 923 s 59 … 569, 901, 929, 931 s 60 … 9, 511, 513, 630–1, 900, 904–6, 928, 932 ss 60-61 … 406 s 60(1) … 175, 509–11, 514, 629, 631, 903, 921, 926 s 60(2) … 512, 631, 926 s 60(3) … 512–13, 631–2, 927, 932 s 60(4) … 175, 510, 512–14, 629, 631–2, 903, 926–7 s 60(5) … 513, 632, 926–7 ss 60–61 … 511 s 62 … 33, 264, 666 ss 62-63 … 857 ss 62-67 … 205 s 62(2) … 264 s 62(3) … 264 s 63 … 33, 205, 267, 528 s 63(1) … 264, 675, 761 s 63(1)–(2) … 666 s 63(2) … 264, 267 s 63(2E)-(2F) … 860 s 63(3) … 266, 675, 863 s 63(4) … 266, 675 s 63(5) … 267 s 64 … 547 s 64(1) … 265, 268 s 65 … 264, 270 s 65(1) … 271, 274 s 65(1)(a) … 273 s 65(2) … 271 s 66 … 270, 903 s 66(1) … 262, 270–1, 424 s 66(2)–(4) … 270 s 66(2)(a) … 272 s 66(2)(b) … 271 s 66(3) … 274 s 66(4) … 273 s 66(5)(a) … 273–4 s 66(6) … 270, 273 ss 68-73 … 129 s 68(1) … 137 s 68(2) … 137 s 68(2)(a) … 776 s 73 … 513, 865, 870 s 74 … 206, 216, 266 s 74(3) … 236 s 74(3)(b) … 213 s 75 … 877

xcviii

s 75(2) … 355, 359, 611, 877 s 75(2)(b) … 872, 877 s 76 … 894 s 76(1) … 601 s 77 … 354, 366, 568, 859, 946 s 77(1) … 6, 944 s 77(2) … 366, 944 s 77(3) … 366, 944 s 77(4) … 366, 895, 944 s 78 … 217, 384, 400, 478, 569, 683, 897 s 79 … 384, 434, 481, 872, 941 s 80 … 374 s 80A … 857 s 81 … 370, 801 s 81(1) … 31, 363 s 81(2) … 6, 370 s 81(3) … 366, 568, 859, 944, 946 s 82(2) … 375, 377 s 82(2)(b) … 877 s 82(3) … 373 s 82(4) … 375 s 83 … 375 s 83(1) … 378 s 83(1)(a) … 378 s 83(2) … 378 s 84 … 7, 33, 129, 137, 199, 227, 242, 251, 270, 355, 358, 369–71, 373, 411, 472–3, 509, 568–9, 571, 574–5, 579, 582, 584, 605, 607–8, 611–12, 701, 872, 919, 944 s 86 … 137 s 87(2) … 26 s 87(3) … 865, 870 s 87(5) … 591 s 88(2) … 32 s 102(2)(c) … 397 Sch 1 … 138, 190, 370, 374–8, 557, 568, 577, 579, 581–2, 584, 599–600, 604–5, 607, 612, 859, 867 Pt I … 153, 159, 442 para 1 … 571, 582, 605, 607, 675 para 2(e) … 569 para 6 … 370, 574, 643 para 6(b) … 612 para 52 … 372 paras 3(e) … 569 Pts I–III … 569 Pt VI … 168, 375–6, 380, 581, 598, 601, 676, 867–8, 898

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION Pts VI–VII … 569 Sch 3 … 240, 859, 941–4 para 1 … 943 para 1(2) … 943 para 2 … 943 para 4 … 944 para 5 … 944 para 8 … 944

para 9 … 944 para 12 … 568, 944 paras 1 and 2 … 899 Sch 6 para 2 … 513 para 6 … 865, 870 Sch 8, Pt III … 137

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 Generally: 2, 5–6, 9, 22, 27–32, 35, 111, 117, 120, 125–6, 130, 168, 170–1, 202, 218, 238, 260, 264–6, 355, 366–71, 381–2, 392, 396, 409–12, 414–17, 422, 426, 429–30, 433, 439, 441–2, 447, 458–9, 461–2, 466, 472, 477, 482, 484, 486–7, 496, 498, 501, 510, 527, 534, 544, 547–8, 550–2, 558, 562–3, 591, 629, 651, 664, 666, 672, 690, 693–4, 709, 731, 736, 755, 757, 765–6, 775, 778–9, 801, 843–4, 847, 851, 856, 863, 869, 877, 880, 895–7, 900, 912, 916, 919–21, 928, 933, 942–4 Pt 1 … 895 Pt 4 … 895 Pt II … 7 Pt IV … 919, 941–4 Pt V … 205 s 1 … 200, 215, 354, 451, 562 s 1(1) … 6, 27, 409, 439, 454, 472, 478 s 1(2) … 7, 411 s 1(3) … 391, 415, 420, 454, 456 s 1(4) … 200, 364–5, 474 s 1(6) … 4, 260, 456 s 2 … 838, 843–4, 846 s 2(1) … 7, 11, 354, 472–3, 479, 486, 520, 526, 650, 797 s 2(1)(a) … 457, 484 s 2(1)(b) … 30, 191, 219, 457, 495, 528, 562, 662, 682, 771, 850 s 2(2) … 7, 190, 483, 701, 703, 731, 856, 863 s 2(2)(b) … 591, 870 s 2(2)(c) … 797 s 2(2)(e) … 778–9, 794 s 2(2)(e)(ii) … 779–80, 793 s 3 … 562, 569, 859–60 s 3(1) … 380 s 3(1)(a)(i) … 369, 381 s 3(1)(a)(ii) … 370 s 3(1)(b) … 370

s 3(2) … 361 s 3(2)(a)(i) … 372, 702 s 3(2)(b) … 454 s 3(3) … 381 s 4(1) … 380 s 4(1)(b) … 381 s 4(2) … 380 s 4(3) … 380 s 5(1)–(2) … 381 s 5(3) … 381–2 s 5(4) … 381 s 6(1) … 382 s 6(2)(a) … 382 s 6(2)(b) … 382 s 6(3) … 382 s 7(1) … 381 s 7(2) … 381 s 7(4) … 382 s8…7 s 8(1) … 208, 391, 409 s 8(1)(a) … 411 s 8(1)(b) … 411–12 s 8(1)(c) … 413 s 8(2) … 411 s 9 … 416 s 9(1) … 8, 417 s 9(2) … 417 s 9(3) … 419, 457 s 9(4) … 416–17 s 9(7) … 6, 416–17 s 10 … 459 s 10(1) … 156, 420–1, 487 s 10(1)(a) … 420–1 s 10(1)(b) … 420–1 s 10(2) … 426 s 10(3) … 419–20, 422 s 10(4) … 423

xcix

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 11 … 200, 463, 546 s 11(1) … 466, 468 s 11(2) … 200 s 11(2)(a) … 466 s 11(2)(b) … 211, 467 s 11(2)(c) … 464, 466 s 11(3) … 468 s 11(4) … 464 s 11(5) … 468 s 12 … 159, 361, 459 s 12(1) … 391, 439, 441, 457 s 12(2) … 442 s 12(2)(b) … 442 s 12(4) … 440–1 s 13(1) … 391, 420, 439, 444 s 13(1)(b) … 481 s 13(4) … 6, 420, 444 s 14 … 215, 458 s 14(1) … 268, 447, 456 s 14(2) … 159, 451, 457 s 14(7) … 208 s 15(1) … 390, 414, 459 s 15(2) … 414 s 16 … 160, 458 s 16(1) … 12, 423, 460–1, 478–80, 482, 492, 535 s 16(1)(a) … 29, 460 s 16(1)(b) … 460 s 16(1)(c) … 460 s 16(1)(d) … 460, 546, 876 s 16(2) … 6, 461–2, 494, 528 s 16(3) … 461–2 s 16(4) … 444, 459–60 s 16(5) … 451–2, 459 s 16(5)(a) … 459 s 17 … 429 s 17(1) … 487 s 18 … 29, 460, 462, 781, 793–4 s 18(1) … 472, 477, 526 s 18(2) … 478 s 19 … 417 s 19(a) … 417, 459–61 s 19(b) … 417, 459–61, 912 s 20(1) … 912, 934 s 20(5) … 912 s 20(6) … 912 s 21(1) … 912 s 21(2) … 912 s 21(4) … 912 s 21(5) … 912 s 21(8) … 912 s 21(9) … 912

c

s 22 … 269, 912 s 22(1) … 426 s 23(1) … 400, 402 s 23(1)(b) … 406 s 23(2) … 400, 404 ss 23–24 … 205 s 23(3) … 404, 528 s 23(4) … 404–5 s 23(5)(a) … 404 s 23(5)(b) … 404 s 23(6)(a) … 404 s 23(6)(b) … 404 s 25 … 4, 206, 216, 265, 268, 351, 391, 406 s 25(1) … 169, 217, 401, 483, 489, 542 s 25(2)(b) … 544 s 25(3) … 545 ss 25–41 … 482 s 26 … 6, 216–17, 266, 437, 484, 490, 870, 875 s 26(2) … 872 s 26(a) … 131, 385, 591, 805 s 26(c) … 880 s 27 … 6, 217, 265, 406 s 27(1) … 217, 401, 485, 489, 548 s 27(1)(a) … 551 s 27(1)(c) … 222, 551 s 27(2) … 30, 535, 551 s 27(2)(b) … 221, 551 s 27(2)(b)(iii) and (iv) … 551 s 28 … 6, 217, 477, 666 s 28(1) … 30, 221, 485, 488, 491, 535 s 28(2) … 671 s 29 … 22, 31, 217, 477, 731, 733 s 29(1) … 216–17, 485, 490 s 29(1)(a) … 736 s 29(1)(b) … 736 s 29(1)(c) … 736 s 29(1)(d) … 736 s 29(2) … 168, 736, 751 s 29(3) … 6, 168, 195, 528, 736, 754 s 29(4) … 736 s 30 … 6, 22, 30, 217, 221, 477, 485, 488, 491, 501, 535, 731, 733, 755, 757 s 31 … 22, 217, 265, 557, 562 s 31(1) … 31, 161, 217, 224, 477, 485, 491 s 31(2) … 31, 175, 218, 501, 510, 629 s 31(2)–(3) … 9, 502, 510, 629 s 31(3) … 510, 629 s 31(4) … 6, 30, 171, 221, 224, 477, 485, 488, 491, 535, 563, 640, 642 s 31(5)(b)(ii) … 643 s 32 … 22, 216–17, 265, 477

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 32(1) … 6, 30, 224, 535, 644 s 32(1)(a) … 221, 485, 488, 491, 649, 652 s 32(1)(b) … 31, 170, 217, 485, 489, 650, 665 s 32(2) … 847–8 s 32(3) … 653–4, 848 s 33 … 216–17, 383 s 33(1) … 6, 30, 235, 486–7, 490–1, 535, 853 s 33(1)(a) … 217, 477, 838 s 33(1)(b) … 221, 477, 844 s 33(2) … 6, 30, 221, 265, 477, 485, 491, 535, 671 s 34 … 31, 216–17, 265, 477 s 34(1) … 485, 489, 687 s 34(2)(a) … 687 s 34(3) … 690 s 34(4) … 700 s 35 … 162, 216–17, 266, 477 s 35(1) … 6, 30, 221, 226, 485, 491, 535 s 35(1)(a) and (b) … 693 s 35(1)(c) … 701 s 35(1)(d) … 695 s 35(1)(e) … 695 s 35(1)(f) … 696 s 35(1)(g) … 696–7 s 35(1)(h) … 701 s 35(2) … 696, 701 s 35(2)(a) … 697 s 35(2)(b) … 697 s 35(2)(c) … 697 s 35(2)(d) … 167, 697 s 35(2)(e) … 697 s 35(2)(f)–(h) … 167, 697 s 35(2)(i) … 163, 697 s 35(2)(i)–(j) … 167 s 35(2)(j) … 697 s 36 … 170, 216–17, 225, 235, 383, 437, 853, 872 s 36(1) … 31, 170, 217, 486, 490, 750 s 36(2) … 6, 484, 490, 797, 800, 820 s 36(2)(b) … 848 s 37 … 682 s 37(1) … 217 s 37(1)(a) … 483, 489, 701 s 37(1)(b) … 483, 490, 703 s 37(2) … 701 s 37(3) … 703 s 38 … 125, 266, 383, 774, 777, 800 s 38(1) … 217, 532 s 38(1)(a) … 126, 484, 490, 775, 777 s 38(1)(b) … 126, 130, 169–70, 484, 775, 779, 790, 800 s 38(1)(c) … 130 s 38(1)(d) … 130

s 38(2) … 6, 126 s 38(2)-(5) … 779 s 38(2)–(3) … 775 s 38(2)(a)(i) … 130 s 38(2)(a)(ii) … 232, 793 s 38(2)(b) … 130, 780, 793 s 38(3) … 126, 130, 169–70, 232, 794 s 38(5) … 778–9, 781 s 39 … 217, 231, 266, 558, 775, 799, 851, 857, 864, 880 s 39(1) … 6, 163–4, 224, 477, 486, 491, 765 s 39(2) … 217, 486, 490 s 39(2)(a) … 190, 552 s 39(2)(b) … 552–3 s 40 … 6, 30, 217, 221, 485, 491, 535, 704 s 41 … 22, 217, 477, 486, 490, 856, 863–4, 869 s 41(a) … 857, 863–4 s 41(b) … 31, 266, 869 s 42(1) … 31, 895 s 42(2)–(5) … 895 s 43 … 239 s 43(1) … 393, 395, 895, 899 s 43(2) … 895 s 43(3) … 895, 899 s 43(4) … 896 s 43(8) … 899 s 44 … 896 s 44(1) … 394, 396, 407, 899 s 45 … 6 s 45(1) … 896 s 45(2) … 897 s 45(3) … 896 s 45(4) … 896 s 46(1) … 895 s 46(2) … 895 s 46(3) … 35 s 47 … 394, 459–61 s 47(1) … 912, 919, 934 s 47(2)–(7) … 919 ss 47–56 … 941–4 s 48 … 920 s 49 … 942 s 49(1) … 238, 920 s 49(2) … 920 s 49(3) … 920 s 49(3)(b) … 932 s 49(4) … 920 s 49(5)–(7) … 920 s 50 … 239, 896, 920, 942 ss 50-56 … 895 s 50(1) … 8, 238

ci

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 62(3)(b) … 213 s 62(4) … 6 s 63 … 897 s 64 … 877 s 64(1) … 6 s 64(2) … 355, 877 s 65 … 354, 366, 478 s 65(1) … 6, 944 s 65(2) … 944 s 65(3) … 366, 944 s 66 … 384 s 66; … 683 s 67 … 384, 481, 872, 941 s 68 … 366, 944 s 69(1) … 368 s 72(2)(a) … 380 s 72(2)(b) … 380–1, 877 s 73 … 7–8, 129, 137, 199, 355, 358, 369, 422, 472–3, 568, 872 Sch 1 … 190, 379, 381–2, 562, 569, 859–60 Pt 2 para 18 … 380 para 19 … 380 Pt 7 … 898 Sch 2 … 895 Sch 3 … 899, 941–4 para 1 … 943 para 1(2) … 943 para 2 … 943 paras 3 and 4 … 944 paras 7 and 8 … 944 para 10 … 944 para 10(2) … 944

s 50(1)(b) … 899 s 50(7) … 6, 896, 920 s 50(9) … 355, 472 s 51 … 9, 899, 920 s 51(1) … 31, 405 s 52 … 405–6, 942 s 52(1)(a) … 920 s 52(1)(b) … 31, 920 s 52(2) … 9, 31, 175, 487, 501, 921 s 52(3) … 6 s 53 … 240 s 53(1) … 942 s 53(2) … 942 s 53(3) … 942 s 54 … 943 s 55(1) … 941 s 56 … 238, 900, 928, 934, 942 s 57 … 205 s 57(2) … 264 ss 57–59 … 205 s 58 … 528 s 58(1) … 264 s 58(2)(a) … 266 s 58(2)(b) … 266 s 60 … 8, 392, 395–6, 427 s 60(2) … 6 s 60(2)(a) … 392 s 60(4) … 395 s 60(5) … 395 s 61 … 8, 395 s 61(3) … 528 s 61(5) … 395 s 61(6) … 395

Other UK Primary Legislation Access to Health Records Act 1990 … 4, 17, 85, 128, 165, 276, 301–2, s 3(1) … 545 s 3(1)(f) … 302 s 3(3) … 302 s 5(1)(a)(i) … 302 s 5(1)(a)(ii) … 302 s 5(1)(b) … 302 s 5(2)(a)-(b) … 302 s 5(3)(a)-(b) … 302 s 5(4) … 302 s 8 … 302

s 1 … 303 s 6(1) … 303 s 6(2) … 303 s 6(3) … 303

Access to Medical Reports Act 1988 … 18

Adoption and Children Act 2002

cii

Access to Personal Files Act 1987 … 4, 17–18, 128 Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12 … 342, 593, 883 s 12(1)(c) … 593 Adoption Act 1976, s 44 … 864

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 2(1) … 314 ss 56-65 … 314 s 57 … 314 s 57(1) … 314 s 57(2) … 314 s 57(4) … 314 s 58 … 314 s 60(2)(a) … 314 s 61 … 315 s 62 … 315 s 71 … 864 s 79(5) … 314 s 80(1) … 314 s 144(1) … 314 Agricultural Statistics Act 1979 … 259 Air Force Act 1955 … 643 s 101 … 884 Air Force (Constitution) Act 1917 … 643 Airports Act 1986, s 30(7) … 874 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, s 24 … 872 Arbitration Act 1996 … 530, 703 Armed Forces Act 1981 s 20(1) … 642 Sch 3, Pts I–II … 642 Armed Forces Act 2006 … 589, 642–3 ss 367–369 … 643 s 374 … 643 s 378(2) … 643 s 383(2) … 643 Sch 17 … 643 Army Act 1955 … 643 s 60 … 874 s 101 … 884 Army and Air Force (Women’s Service) Act 1948 … 643 Audit Commission Act 1998 … 275, 293, 295 s 8 … 293 s 10(1) … 293 s 13 … 279 s 13(1) … 293 s 13(2)(a) … 294 s 13(2)(b) … 294 s 13(2)(c) … 294 s 13(5) … 294

s 13A(2)(a) … 294 s 13A(2)(b) … 294 s 13A(2)(c) … 294 s 13A(3)(a)(i) … 294 s 13A(3)(a)(ii) … 294 s 13A(3)(b) … 294 s 13A(4) … 294 s 13A(4)(a) … 294 s 13A(4)(b) … 294 s 14(1) … 294 s 14(2) … 294 s 15 … 706 s 15(1) … 295 s 15(3A) … 295 s 15(4) … 295 Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 … 422, 442 Sch 1 … 422, 442 Bill of Rights Act 1689 art 1 … 643 art 9 … 710, 712, 714 Births and Death Acts Registration Act 1953 … 313 Bretton Woods Agreement Act 1945 … 655 Building Societies Act 1986 … 284 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 … 276, 309 s 1(1) … 309 s 1(4) … 309 s 25(1) … 309 Care Standards Act 2000, s 76(7) … 383 Census Act 1920 … 872, 874 s 8 … 872, 874 Charities Act 1993 … 284 s 8 … 703 Charities Act 2011 s 13 … 371 s 353(2) … 358 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 s 37 … 342 s 39 … 883–4 Civil Aviation Act 1982 … 872 s 11 … 323 s 20(2) … 371 Civil Contingencies Act 2004, s 12A … 503

ciii

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION Civil Evidence Act 1995, s 13 … 358 Coal Industry Act 1994 … 277, 321 s 10 … 321 s 35 … 321 s 56 … 321 s 57 … 317 s 57(1)(a) … 321 s 57(1)(b) … 322 s 57(1)(c) … 322 s 57(1)(d) … 322 s 57(1)(e) … 322 s 57(1)(f) … 322 s 57(2)(a) … 321 s 57(2)(b) … 321 s 57(2)(c) … 321 s 57(6) … 322 s 57(8) … 321 Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 … 259 Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 … 276, 309, 322 s 47(1) … 309 s 47(5)(a) … 309 s 47(5)(b) … 309 Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 s 1(4) … 371 s 18 … 873 s 23 … 873 Commons Act 2006 s 1 … 310 s 53 … 310 Sch 6, Pt I … 310 Commons Registration Act 1965 … 276, 309 s 2 … 310 s 3(1) … 310 s 3(2) … 310 s 22(1) … 310 Communications Act 2003 … 277, 317, 323 s 33 … 323 s 44(1) … 323 s 44(2) … 323 s 44(3) … 323 s 44(6) … 323 s 393 … 873, 875 s 393(2) … 875 Community Health Councils (Access to

civ

Information) Act 1988 … 17 Community Health Councils (Access to Information Act) 1988, s 2 … 303 Companies Act 1985 … 684 s 448 … 943 Companies Act 2006, s 2 … 284 Competition Act 1998, s 57 … 383 Constitution Act 1867 … 610 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 … 857 s 37(1) … 33 s 37(1)(a)-(ab) … 857 s 46 … 264 Consumer Protection Act 1987, s 13 … 387 Contempt of Court Act 1981 … 880, 884 ss 1–5 … 883 s 2(1) … 883 s 4 … 593 s 6(c) … 883 s 8 … 883 s 10 … 337 s 11 … 593 s 14 … 907 Control of Pollution Act 1974 … 276, 304 s 64(1) … 304 s 64(2) … 304 s 64(7) … 305 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 … 236 s 50 … 434 s 50(1) … 383 s 163 … 590 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Pt 3, ch 2 … 593 s 20 … 165, 302 s 177(1) … 302 s 182(4)(e) … 302 Sch 21, Pt 1, para 29(1) … 302 County Courts Act 1984 s 52 … 332 s 53 … 341 Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s 73(1) … 254 Crime and Courts Act 2013 … 583–4

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION Pt 1 … 582 s 1 … 583 s 1(2) … 583–4 s 1(4)-(5) … 584 s 1(5) … 584 ss 3-4 … 584 s 4 … 583 s 5 … 584 s 15 … 573, 582 Sch 1 … 583 para 1 … 584 para 7 … 583 para 9 … 583 Sch 2 … 584 Sch 3 para 1 … 584 Pts 2-6 … 584 Sch 8 … 582 Pt 2 para 34 … 573 para 35 … 573 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s 51 … 344 Sch 3, para 2(6)(a) … 344 Criminal Justice Act 1987, s 11 … 883 Criminal Justice Act 1988, s 159(1) … 593 Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 134(1) … 358 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 … 581 Pt V … 581 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 … 347, 352 Pt I … 345 Pt II … 345–8 s 2(4) … 345 s 3 … 685 s 3(1) … 345 s 3(2) … 345 s 3(6) … 345, 347, 591 s 3(7) … 345 s 5 … 345 s 6 … 346 s 6A … 345 s 7A … 685 s 7A(2) … 345–6 s 7A(3) … 345–6 s 7A(8) … 345, 347 s 7A(9) … 345 s 8 … 346

s 8(1) … 346 s 8(2) … 346 s 8(3) … 346 s 8(4) … 346 s 8(5) … 345–7 s 8(6) … 345 s 13 … 345 s 14 … 346, 348 ss 14-16 … 591 s 15 … 348 s 16 … 348 s 17 … 352, 685 ss 17–18 … 593 s 18(1) … 352 s 21 … 345 s 21(2) … 591 Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965, s 2 … 349 Crown Estate Act 1961, s 1(1) … 371 Crown Proceedings Act 1947 … 4 s 28 … 332, 591 s 31(1) … 568, 859 s 40(2)(f) … 568, 859 Data Protection Act 1984 … 1, 17–19, 23, 85, 127–8, 131, 139, 149, 154, 420, 776, 900 s 3(1)(a) … 891 s 21 … 17, 128 s 27 … 506, 560 s 27(2) … 506, 560 s 27(3) … 506, 560 Data Protection Act 1998 … 1–2, 4–5, 19, 23, 27, 31–2, 37, 85, 102, 122–81, 232, 278, 301–2, 313, 329, 344, 350–2, 386, 391–2, 395, 408–10, 412–16, 420, 426–7, 434–6, 438, 448, 451–3, 464, 469–70, 476, 479, 484, 498, 500–4, 506, 509–12, 515–18, 537, 542, 547, 549, 552, 554–6, 558, 560, 569, 588, 601, 604, 615–16, 621–3, 628, 631, 637–9, 641–2, 649, 665, 670–1, 679–82, 693–6, 700, 706–8, 717, 729, 765, 773–8, 780–2, 787, 790, 792–4, 828, 856, 865, 870, 885–7, 889–92, 895–8, 900, 908, 910, 935–7, 939–41, 944–6 Pt II … 898, 937 Pts II-III … 615 Pt III … 892, 937 Pt IV … 6, 160, 520, 682–3, 779, 781–2, 794 Pt V … 615, 893, 937 s 1(1) … 6, 127–9, 133–6, 140, 145–7, 176, 231, 412, 472, 775, 779–80, 782, 792–3, 820

cv

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 1(1)(e) … 776 s 1(2) … 133, 147 s 1(4) … 146 s 1(5) … 133, 137 s 1(6) … 133, 138 s 2 … 790 s 3 … 893 s 3(1)(a) … 891 s 3(1)(b) … 900 s 4 … 781, 784 s 4(2) … 782 s 4(4) … 142, 179, 782, 936 s 5 … 131 s 5(1) … 891 s 5(1)(a) … 132 s 5(1)(b) … 132 s 5(2) … 132, 892 s 5(3) … 132 s 6(3) … 900 s 6(4) … 901 s 7 … 5, 85, 124, 132, 140, 142, 146, 152, 172, 176, 231, 390, 472, 532, 615, 630, 637, 664, 679, 773, 779, 800, 850, 871, 889, 898, 902, 935–7, 940, 946 s 7(1) … 166, 174, 412, 440, 457, 472, 935 s 7(1)(a) … 6, 148, 457, 477, 505, 637–8, 709, 794 s 7(1)(b) … 148 s 7(1)(b)-(d) … 622, 638 s 7(1)(c) … 6, 148, 155, 464, 469, 478 s 7(1)(c)(i) … 160 s 7(1)(c)(ii) … 157 s 7(1)(d) … 148, 470, 935 s 7(2) … 7 s 7(2)(a) … 150, 409–10 s 7(2)(b) … 8, 153, 417, 457 s 7(3) … 152, 412–13, 416, 456 s 7(4) … 141, 150, 155, 170, 427, 435, 778 s 7(5) … 150, 155, 170, 435–6, 463 s 7(6) … 155, 436 s 7(7) … 151, 154 s 7(8) … 156, 420, 426 s 7(9) … 8, 174, 893, 898, 935, 937–8, 940, 944 s 7(10) … 153, 156, 426 s 8 … 935 s 8(2) … 157, 464, 470 s 8(2)(a) … 470 s 8(2)(b) … 470 s 8(3) … 159, 452, 457 s 8(4) … 159, 452 s 8(5) … 150, 470, 838 s 8(6) … 156, 470

cvi

s 8(7) … 140–1, 155, 435 s 9 … 935 s 9A … 935 s 9A(1) … 152–3, 440 s 9A(2) … 133, 153 s 9A(3) … 153, 159 s 9A(3)–(6) … 133 s 9A(4) … 153, 159 s 9A(5) … 153 s 9A(6) … 153, 159 s 10 … 779–81, 792–3 s 10(2)(a) … 793 s 10(3) … 793 s 11 … 788 s 12 … 150 s 13 … 178, 945 s 13(1) … 178 s 13(2) … 178 s 13(3) … 178, 945 s 14(2) … 133 s 14(4) … 178 s 14(5) … 179 s 14(6) … 179 s 15 … 8 s 15(1) … 174, 935 s 15(2) … 174, 936 s 21 … 85 ss 27-39 … 160, 781 s 27(1) … 781 s 27(1)–(2) … 160 s 27(2) … 131, 547 s 27(5) … 131, 871 s 28 … 162, 506, 511, 518, 560–1, 569, 597, 615, 622–4, 628, 630–1, 633, 636–8, 904–6, 928, 939 s 28(1) … 161, 175, 639, 665, 902, 938 s 28(1)(b) … 161 s 28(2) … 161, 175–6, 351, 501, 505, 509–12, 629–31, 637–9, 902, 936–8 s 28(2)–(3) … 9 s 28(3) … 161, 175, 509–11, 629–31, 937–8 s 28(4) … 505, 511, 514, 630–1, 637–8, 902, 907, 938 s 28(5) … 512–13, 631–2, 927, 938–9 s 28(6) … 161, 510, 513–14, 630–2, 902, 936, 938 s 28(7) … 513, 632 s 28(10) … 161, 502, 510, 630 s 28(12) … 175 s 29(1) … 162, 693 s 29(1)(c) … 695 s 29(2) … 162, 695

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 29(3) … 351 s 29(4) … 162–3 s 29(5) … 162 s 30(1) … 163 s 30(2)(a) … 164 s 30(3) … 165 s 30(5) … 164 s 31 … 167 s 31(1) … 167, 697 s 31(1)–(2) … 700 s 31(1)–(3) … 696 s 31(2)(a)(i) … 167 s 31(2)(a)(i)-(iii) … 697 s 31(2)(a)(ii) … 167 s 31(2)(a)(iii) … 167 s 31(2)(b) … 167 s 31(2)(b)–(d) … 697 s 31(2)(c) … 167 s 31(2)(d) … 167 s 31(2)(e) … 167, 697 s 31(2)(f) … 167, 697 s 31(3) … 167 s 31(4)–(5) … 700 s 31(4)(a) … 167 s 31(4)(b) … 167 s 31(4A) … 167 s 31(5) … 168 s 31(6) … 168 s 32(1) … 886 s 32(1)(b) … 168, 886 s 32(2) … 886 s 32(6) … 547 s 33 … 781 s 33(1) … 168–9, 885 s 33(4) … 168, 885 s 33(5)(a)–(c) … 169, 885 s 33(5)(d) … 169, 885 s 33A … 133, 152, 792–3 s 33A(2) … 169, 885 s 34 … 169, 351 s 35 … 683, 717, 729 s 35(2) … 706 s 35A … 170, 513, 708, 717 s 36 … 170 s 37 … 170–3, 558, 641, 797, 865, 870, 886–9 s 38(1) … 131, 173, 889 s 39 … 131 s 40 … 902, 936, 940 s 40(1) … 176–7, 775, 945 s 40(2) … 775 s 40(4) … 133

s 40(6)(a) … 177 s 40(8) … 902 s 41(1) … 177 s 41(2) … 177, 902 s 42 … 511, 898, 936, 938 s 42(1) … 175, 940 s 42(2) … 176, 936, 940 s 42(3) … 176 s 42(3)(c) … 937 s 42(4) … 176 s 43 … 162, 511, 896, 902, 936, 940 s 43(1) … 176–7, 945 s 43(4) … 176 s 43(5) … 176, 902 s 43(8) … 918, 937 s 44 … 902, 940 s 44(6) … 902 s 45(1) … 902 s 47 … 178–9 s 47(1) … 945 s 47(2) … 945 s 47(3) … 945 s 48 … 937, 940 s 48(1) … 176–7, 902 s 48(2) … 177, 902 s 48(3) … 902 s 48(4) … 902 s 49 … 176 s 49(1) … 937 s 49(2) … 937 s 50 … 181, 946 s 51 … 145, 162, 436 s 51(1) … 892, 938 s 51(2) … 893 s 51(3) … 395, 893, 935 s 51(4) … 893 s 51(6) … 893 s 52 … 893 s 52(1) … 892 s 53 … 893 s 54 … 893 s 54(1) … 891 s 54A … 558, 615, 630 s 55 … 558, 615, 630, 870, 937 s 55(1) … 179 s 55(2) … 180 s 55A … 179 s 55B(5) … 937 s 56 … 180 s 56(1) … 158 s 56(10 … 158

cvii

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 56(2) … 158 s 56(3) … 158 s 56(4) … 158 s 56(5) … 158 s 56(6) … 158 s 56(8) … 158 s 57 … 159 s 58 … 896 s 59 … 873, 896 s 59(1) … 180 s 59(2) … 180, 897 s 59(3) … 180 s 60 … 893 s 60(1) … 180, 893, 945–6 s 60(2) … 180, 945 s 60(3) … 180, 946 s 61(1) … 946 s 63 … 8 s 63(3) … 870 s 63(5) … 870, 946 s 63A … 638 s 63A(1) … 708 s 63A(1)-(3) … 569 s 63A(2)–(3) … 708 s 64 … 150, 152 s 64(2) … 411 s 68 … 136, 163 s 68(1) … 164, 427 s 68(1)(b) … 136 s 68(1)(c) … 136–7, 165 s 68(2) … 780 s 69 … 137, 163 s 70(1) … 7, 149, 547, 946 s 74(2) … 17, 128 s 75(4) … 158 Sch 1 … 781, 784, 828 Pt I … 177, 781, 892 para 6 … 936 Pt II … 781, 785, 892 paras 1-4 … 782 para 2(3)(c) … 786 para 3 … 934 para 3(2)(a) … 786 paras 3(2)(b) and 7 … 133 para 8 … 784 para 8(a) … 936, 945 para 8(e) … 177 Sch 2 … 434, 781–2, 784, 788, 828 Schs 2-4 … 892 Sch 3 … 782, 790, 828 Sch 5 … 895

cviii

Pt I … 892 para 1 … 892 para 2 … 892 para 5 … 892 para 6 … 892 para 8 … 892 para 9 … 892 para 10 … 892 Sch 6 … 175–7, 630 para 2 … 901 Sch 7 … 641 para 1 … 170, 797, 886 para 2 … 171, 558, 641, 887 para 3 … 170, 865, 887 para 3(a) … 865 para 3(b) … 870 para 4 … 171, 887 para 5 … 171, 887 para 6 … 171, 887 para 6(1) … 679 para 6(1)(a)(i) … 171, 888 para 6(1)(a)(ii) … 172, 888 para 6(1)(b) … 172, 888 para 6(2) … 172, 888 para 6(3) … 171, 888 para 7 … 172, 888 para 8 … 172, 889 para 8(1) … 172, 889 para 8(5) … 172, 889 para 9 … 172, 889 para 9(1) … 172, 889 para 10 … 170, 729 para 11(1) … 173, 889 para 11(2) … 173, 889 Sch 8 … 131 para 3 … 137 paras 14 and 14A … 137 para 14A … 133 Sch 9 … 181 para 1 … 946 para 12 … 870, 946 Sch 11 … 136, 156, 164, 427, 780 para 1 … 164 Sch 12 … 136, 165, 780 para 1(a) … 137 para 1(b) … 137 para 2 … 137 para 4 … 137 Sch 14 para 3(4) … 131 para 3(5) … 131

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION Sch 16 … 17 Pt I … 128 Defence (Transfer of Functions) Act 1964 … 606, 643 Disability Discrimination Act 1995 … 392, 468 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 … 316 s 35(1) … 316 s 35(3)(b) … 316 s 35(5) … 316 s 35(7) … 316 s 35(8) … 316 s 36 … 316 s 38 … 316 s 39 … 316 s 41 … 316 s 42 … 316 s 44 … 316 s 45(1) … 316 s 46 … 316 s 52(2) … 316 Drug Trafficking Act 1994, s 53(2)(b) … 536 Education Act 1944 … 3 Education Act 1996 … 277, 324, 327, 427 s 43 … 330 s 312 … 327 s 332A(1) … 328 s 332A(2) … 328 s 332A(3) … 328 s 337 … 326 s 457 … 325, 327 s 537(1) … 325 s 579 … 164 Education Act 2002 s 1 … 16 s 141 … 697 s 142 … 697 Education Act 2005 s 5 … 329 s 10A … 330 s 14 … 330 s 14A … 330 s 16 … 330 s 16A … 330 s 18 … 329 s 28 … 330

s 38(4) … 330 s 39(1) … 330 s 39(7) … 330 s 39(8) … 330 s 41(4) … 330 s 42(1) … 330 s 42(5) … 330 s 48(1) … 331 s 48(4) … 331 s 49(2) … 331 s 49(3) … 331 s 49(4)(a) … 331 s 49(4)(b) … 331 s 49(4)(c) … 331 Education (Scotland) Act 1980 … 380 Electricity Act 1989 … 277, 319 s 3A … 319 s 6(1) … 319 s 25(6) … 319 s 25(8) … 319 s 27A(1) … 319 s 27A(5) … 319 s 49 … 317 s 49(2) … 319 s 49(5) … 319 s 49(6) … 319 s 64(1) … 319 Employment and Training Act 1973, s 10 … 325 Employment Rights Act 1996 … 503, 685, 771 Pt IVA … 591, 692 ss 43A–43L … 531, 816 s 43B(1)(a) … 531 s 43B(3) … 591 s 47B … 591 s 103A … 591 s 105(6A) … 591 s 111(2)(a) … 419 ss 191–193 … 591 s 193 … 591 s 202 … 591 Energy Act 2004 … 319 s 184(12) … 319 s 185(13) … 319 Enterprise Act 2002 … 878, 894 Pt 8 … 894 s 1(2) … 371 s 237 … 873

cix

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION Environment Act 1995 s 57 … 222 s 63 … 282 s 64 … 282 s 113(3)(b) … 874 Sch 7 … 282 Sch 11 … 304 Environment and Safety Information Act 1988 … 276, 304–5 s 1(1) … 305 s 1(1)(d) … 306 s 1(4) … 305 s 4(1) … 306 Environmental Protection Act 1990 … 276, 304, 308 s 20(7)(a) … 308 s 20(7)(b) … 308 s 20(8) … 308 s 21(1) … 308 s 22(1)(a) … 308 s 78R … 308 s 78R(8)(a) … 308 s 78R(8)(b) … 308 s 78R(9) … 308 s 78S … 308 s 78T(1)(a) … 308 s 95 … 308 s 95(4)(a) … 308 s 95(4)(b) … 308 s 95(5) … 308 s 122 … 308 s 122(2)(a) … 308 s 122(2)(b) … 308 s 122(3) … 308 s 123(1) … 308 s 123(3)(a) … 308 s 149(8) … 308 Equality Act 2010 … 465, 503 Sch 6, para 3 … 864 European Communities Act 1972 … 878 s 1 … 878 s 2(1) … 878 s 2(2) … 206, 216, 227 s 3(5) … 206 Sch 1, Pt II … 878 Factories Act 1961, s 154 … 874 Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act

cx

1976, s 42 … 503, 505, 516 Family Law Reform Act 1987, ss 19 and 27 … 864 Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 … 687, 703 Film Levy Finance Act 1981 … 259 Finance Act 1989, s 182 … 874 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Pt XVI … 167 s 348 … 873, 875 Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 … 276, 304–5 Pt II … 305 s 2(2) … 306 s 8(3), (4) and (5) … 305 s 10 … 305 s 14(1) … 305 s 14(2)(a) … 305 s 14(2)(b) … 305 s 14(5)(a) … 305 s 14(5)(b) … 305 s 14(6) … 305 s 14(7) … 305 ss 19(5) and 19(6) … 306 Food Standards Act 1999, s 1(3) … 371 Friendly Societies Act 1974 … 284 Friendly Societies Act 1992 … 284 Gambling Act 2005 … 277, 317, 323, 872 s 2 … 323 s 65(1) … 323 s 65(2) … 323 s 106(1)(a) … 323 s 106(1)(b) … 323 s 106(1)(c) … 323 s 150(1) … 324 s 156(1) … 323 s 156(1)(b) … 324 s 156(1)(c) … 324 ss 214–218 … 324 s 234(1)(a) … 324 s 234(1)(b) … 324 s 234(1)(c) … 324 Sch 10 para 23(1)(a) … 324 para 23(1)(b) … 324 para 23(1)(c) … 324

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION Sch 12 para 26(1)(a) … 324 para 26(1)(b) … 324 para 26(1)(c) … 324 Sch 13 para 22(1)(a) … 324 para 22(1)(b) … 324 para 22(1)(c) … 324 Sch 14 para 23(1)(a) … 324 para 23(1)(b) … 324 para 23(1)(c) … 324 Gender Recognition Act 2004, s 16 … 864 Government of Wales Act 1998 … 32, 667 Pt I … 667 s 1(2) … 668 s 1(3) … 670 s 2 … 668 s 22 … 562, 667 s 89 … 670 Sch 2 … 562 Government of Wales Act 2006 … 32, 254, 668 Pt 2 … 668 s 58 … 562 s 94 … 562 s 94(7) … 610 s 108 … 562 s 108(7) … 610 s 134(4) … 378 s 139(4) … 378 s 146(1) … 255 s 147 … 255 s 148 … 254–5 s 148(1) … 252 s 148(2) … 252 s 162 … 562 Sch 3 … 562 Sch 5 … 562 Sch 7 … 562 Sch 11 … 562 Greater London Authority Act 1999 … 291 Pt III … 282 s 45(3) … 291 s 45(4) … 291 s 45(6) … 291 s 52(3) … 291 s 55 … 291 s 58(1) … 290 s 58(2) … 290

s 58(3) … 291 s 58(4) … 291 s 58(5) … 291 s 58(6) … 291 s 58(7) … 291 s 58(8) … 291 s 58(9) … 291 s 58(10) … 291 s 58(11) … 291 s 61(1) … 291 s 61(1)(a) … 291 s 61(1)(b) … 291 s 61(2) … 291 s 61(3) … 291 s 61(4) … 291 s 61(5) … 291 s 65(1) … 292 s 65(2) … 292 Harbours Act 1964 … 277, 318 s 42 … 317 s 42(1) … 319 s 42(9) … 319 Health Act 1999 s 65 … 17 Sch 4, para 72 … 17 Sch 5 … 17 Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 … 684 s 1 … 16 s 10(3) … 371 s 18(7)(a) … 306 s 19 … 343 ss 21 and 22 … 306 Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, s 15 … 873–4 Health Service Joint Consultative Committees (Access to Information) Act 1986 … 17 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 … 864, 868 s 1 … 864 House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 … 371 House of Lords Act 1999 … 866 Housing Act 1988 … 374 Pt III … 311 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act

cxi

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION 1990 … 315, 864 s 31(1) … 315 s 31(2) … 315 s 31(3) … 315 s 31(4) … 315 s 31F(1) … 315 s 31ZA … 315 s 31ZB(3) … 315 s 33 … 874 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, s 48 … 864 Human Rights Act 1998 … 82–3, 97–102, 173, 201, 377, 504–5, 512, 596, 788, 795–6, 807, 813, 815, 821–3, 825, 855, 890, 897, 908, 934, 938 s 1 … 637, 814, 821 s 1(1) … 822 s 1(1)–(3) … 504, 596 s 2 … 815, 822, 824 s 3 … 101, 221, 504, 596, 637, 815, 824 s 6 … 100, 221, 504, 596, 637, 823–4, 876 s 6(1) … 821, 897, 908 s 6(3) … 822, 897, 908 s 7 … 578, 837 s 7(1)(a) … 578 s 8 … 435 s 12 … 824 s 12(3) … 537 Sch 1 … 504, 596 Inclosure Act 1857, s 5 … 255 Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1965 to 1978 … 284 Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947 … 259 Industry Act 1975 … 277, 318 s 27 … 317–18, 677 Sch 5 … 318 para 1 … 318 para 2(a) … 318 para 2(b) … 318 para 3 … 318 para 4 … 318 para 5 … 318 para 7 … 318 Inquiries Act 2005 … 703 s 18(3) … 703 ss 19-21 … 592 s 25(4)–(7) … 592

cxii

s 41 … 703 Insolvency Act 1986, s 291 … 722 Intelligence Services Act 1994 … 568, 571, 573–4, 577, 580, 585–6, 589–90, 599, 602–3 s 1(1) … 570, 573 s 1(2) … 574, 617 s 2(1) … 573 s 2(2)(a) … 590, 617 s 2(3)(b) … 599 s 2(4) … 573 s 3(1) … 574 s 3(1)(a) … 574 s 3(1)(b) … 574 s 3(2) … 574, 617 s 3(3) … 612 s 4(1) … 574 s 4(2)(a) … 590 s 4(3)(b) … 599 s 4(4) … 574 s 5(2)(c) … 590 ss 5–7 … 577 s 7(3)(c) … 590 s 8 … 570, 599 s 9 … 568, 577 s 10 … 570, 585, 638 s 10(1) … 602 s 10(2)–(3) … 603 s 10(5) … 603 s 10(6) … 603 s 10(6)–(7) … 603 s 10(7) … 590 Sch 1 … 577 Sch 2 … 577 Sch 3 … 585, 602 para 3 … 603 para 4 … 603 Interception of Communications Act 1985 … 567, 572–3, 589, 600 s 2 … 591 s 6 … 591 s 7 … 567, 577 s 8 … 600 Sch 1 … 577 International Criminal Court Act 2001, s 39 … 503 International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964 … 643 International Monetary Fund Act 1979 … 655

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION Interpretation Act 1978 … 150, 368, 410, 509, 629, 642, 857, 871 s 5 … 201, 366, 568, 642, 652, 666, 671, 878 s 6(c) … 862 s 10 … 856 s 14 … 877 s 22(1) … 642, 666, 671 Sch 1 … 131, 193, 201, 366, 568, 642, 652, 666, 671, 878 Sch 2 para 4(2) … 642 para 5(a) … 642, 666, 671 Justice and Security Act 2013 … 585–6 Pt 1 … 585 Pt 2 … 593 s 1(2)-(3) … 585 s 1(4) … 585 s 1(5) … 585 s 1(6)-(7) … 585 s 2(1)-(2) … 585 s 2(3) … 586 s 2(5)-(6) … 585 s 3(1)-(2) … 586 s 3(3)-(4) … 586 s 5 … 599 s 19(1) … 585 Sch 1 para 4 … 586 para 4(2)(a) … 586 para 4(3)(a) … 586 para 4(4)(a) … 586 para 4(4)(b) … 586 para 5 … 586 para 6 … 586 Sch 2 para 1 … 585 para 5 … 585 Sch 3 … 585 Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 … 316, 509 Land Registration Act 2002 … 276, 312 s 66(1) … 312 s 66(2) … 312 s 68(1) … 312 s 68(2) … 312 s 69 … 312 s 69(1) … 312 s 69(3) … 312 Law of Property Act 1922, s 144A … 254–5

Law of Property Act 1925, s 45(4) … 358 Law Reform (Parent And Child) (Scotland) Act 1986, s 29 … 864 Legal Aid Act 1988, s 38 … 873 Legal Services Act 2007, Pt 6 … 167 Legitimacy Act 1976, Sch 1 … 864 Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, s 1 … 380 Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act 1908 … 3 s3…3 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 s 88 … 311 s 103 … 311 Local Government, etc (Scotland) Act 1994 … 380 Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 … 275–6, 293, 310–11 Pt X … 310–11 s 93(1) … 311 s 93(2) … 311 s 93(3) … 311 s 94(2) … 310 s 95 … 293, 310 s 95(1) … 310 s 95(2) … 310 s 95(2)(a) … 310 s 95(2)(b) … 310 s 95(2)(c) … 310 s 95(3) … 310 s 95(4) … 310 s 95(5) … 310 s 96 … 279, 310 s 96(1) … 311 s 96(1)(a) … 293 s 96(1)(b) … 293 s 96(2) … 311 s 96(3) … 293, 311 s 96(4) … 293, 312 Sch 16 … 293, 311 Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 … 17–18, 281 Local Government Act 1933, s 85 … 3 Local Government Act 1972 … 17, 275–6, 281–3, 285–92, 300, 312, 734, 865

cxiii

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION Pt VA … 17, 279, 281–2, 286, 288, 290–2 Pt XI … 288 s 65(4) … 292 s 65(6) … 292 s 65(7) … 292 s 65(8) … 292 s 100A … 284 ss 100A-100D … 302 ss 100A-100K … 17, 281 s 100A(1) … 281 s 100A(2) … 281, 291 s 100A(3)(a) … 283 s 100A(4) … 281, 283 s 100A(5)(a) … 283 s 100A(5)(b) … 283 s 100A(6)(b) … 282 s 100A(6)(c) … 282 s 100A(8) … 282 s 100B … 284, 292 s 100B(1) … 284–6, 289, 292 s 100B(3) … 285, 292 s 100B(3)(a) … 285 s 100B(3)(b) … 285 s 100B(4)(a) … 285 s 100B(4)(b) … 286 s 100B(5)(a) … 285 s 100B(5)(b) … 285 s 100B(6) … 284–5 s 100B(7) … 285, 289 s 100B(7)(c) … 290 s 100B(8) … 284–5 s 100C … 286, 291–2 s 100C(1) … 286, 289 s 100C(1)(a) … 286 s 100C(1)(b) … 286 s 100C(1)(c) … 286 s 100C(2) … 286 s 100D … 286, 291 s 100D(1) … 286 s 100D(1)(a) … 286 s 100D(1)(b) … 286 s 100D(2) … 286 s 100D(3) … 286 s 100D(4) … 287, 291 s 100D(5) … 287 s 100E … 291 s 100E(1) … 287 s 100E(2) … 287 s 100E(3)(a) … 291 s 100EA(2) … 289 s 100F … 291–2

cxiv

s 100F(1) … 288 s 100F(2) … 288 s 100F(2A) … 288 s 100F(2C) … 288 s 100F(2D) … 288 s 100F(5) … 287 s 100G(1) … 291 s 100G(1)(a) … 288 s 100G(1)(b) … 288 s 100G(2) … 288 s 100G(3) … 288 s 100G(4) … 288 s 100H(1) … 289 s 100H(2)(a) … 289 s 100H(2)(b) … 289 s 100H(3) … 289, 291 s 100H(4)(a) … 289 s 100H(4)(b) … 289 s 100H(5) … 289 s 100H(6) … 289 s 100H(6)(a) … 289 s 100H(6)(b) … 289 s 100H(6)(c) … 290 s 100H(6)(d) … 290 s 100H(6)(e) … 290 s 100H(7) … 289, 292 s 100I(1) … 283, 288 s 100I(1A) … 283 s 100J(1)(f) … 282 s 100J(2) … 282 s 100K(1) … 282 s 101(9) … 291 s 111 … 312, 387 s 142 … 387 s 228 … 17 s 228(1) … 290 s 228(2) … 290 s 228(3) … 290 s 228(6) … 290 s 228(7) … 290 s 228(7A) … 290 s 228(8) … 290 s 270(1) … 282 s100A(2) … 282 s100A(6)(a) … 281 Sch 1 … 282 Sch 12 … 281 Sch 12A … 17, 283, 285, 291, 299–300 Pt 1 … 284, 288, 301 para 1 … 283 paras 1-6 … 288

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION para 2 … 284 para 4 … 284, 536 para 5 … 284 para 6 … 284 para 7 … 284 para 9 … 288 para 11 … 288 para 12 … 288 para 14 … 288 para 17 … 288 Pt 2 … 288 para 8 … 284 para 9 … 283–4 para 10 … 284 Pt 3 para 1(2) … 284 para 3 … 284 Pt 4 … 288 Pt 5 … 288 Pt I … 283 Pt II, para 7 … 283 Pt IV … 283 Local Government Act 1974 … 227, 275, 292 s 30 … 279 s 30(1)(c) … 292 s 30(4) … 293 s 30(4A) … 293 s 30(5) … 293 s 30(6) … 293 s 30(7) … 292–3 s 32 … 873 Local Government Act 1985 Pt IV … 282, 311 s 27 … 282 Local Government Act 2000 … 275, 287, 295–6 Pt II … 296 s 2 … 312, 387 s 22 … 279 s 22(1) … 295–6 s 22(11) … 296 s 22(12) … 296 s 22(3) … 296 s 22(4) … 296 s 22(5) … 296 s 22(6) … 296 s 22(7) … 296 s 22(8) … 296 s 22(9) … 296 s 38 … 297

s 57A(1) … 281 s 57B … 281 Local Government and Housing Act 1989 ss 1-3 … 291 s 194 … 288 Sch 11, para 24 … 288 Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 s 207 … 311 s 236 … 287 Local Government Finance Act 1988 s 61 … 295 s 144(2) … 295 Sch 9 … 295 para 8 … 279, 295 para 9 … 295 Local Government Finance Act 1992 … 279, 295 s 1(2) … 295 s 28(1)(a) … 295 s 28(1)(b) … 295 s 91 … 295 Local Government (Records) Act 1962 … 275, 279, 281 s 1(1) … 281 Local Government (Records) Act 1972, s 1(1)(a) … 281 Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 … 285 s 235(1) … 380 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s 8 … 883 s 97 … 349 Marriage Act 1949 … 313 Mental Health Act 1973 … 316, s 118(2) … 407 Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s 268 … 703 Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 s 2(2) … 515 s 3(1)(a) and (b) … 861 Sch 1 … 861 National Health Service Act 1977, s 20 … 17 National Health Service Act 2006 s 39(1) … 303 s 39(2) … 303

cxv

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 39(4) … 303 s 39(5) … 303 s 52 … 303 s 65 … 303 Sch 7, para 27 … 303 National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, s 5(1) … 280 National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 … 280 Pt II … 381 s 12A … 280 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, s 86 … 304 National Service Act 1948 … 253 Naval Discipline Act 1957 … 643 s 65 … 884 New Towns Act 1981 … 311 Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 s 1 … 282 s 1(3)(a) … 290 Northern Ireland Act 1998 … 503, 667 Pt III … 667 s 4 … 864 s 4(1) … 33, 373, 562 s 6(2) … 562 s 14(5) … 562 s 19 … 747 s 20 … 667 s 98(2) … 610 Sch 2 para 1 … 562 para 4 … 562 para 6 … 864 para 17 … 562 para 22 … 610 Sch 3, para 42 … 610 Sch 13, para 9(3) … 670 Northern Ireland Act 2000 … 562, 667 s 1 … 562 s 4 … 562 Sch 1 … 562 Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 … 667 Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006 … 667 s 2 … 562, 667 Sch 2 … 562, 667

cxvi

Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2007 … 562 s 1 … 562, 667 Nuclear Installations Act 1965 … 276, 317 s 6 … 317–18 Official Secrets Act 1911 … 588 s 1 … 874 Official Secrets Act 1920 s 8 … 342 s 8(4) … 593 Official Secrets Act 1989 … 569, 588–9, 591, 603 s 1 … 588, 593 s 1(1) … 585 s 1(1)-(2) … 588–9 s 1(1)(b) … 585, 603 s 1(3)–(5) … 589 s 1(5) … 588 s 1(6)-(8) … 603 s 1(9) … 588–9 s 2 … 589, 645 s 2(1) … 589, 645 s 2(2) … 645 s 2(2)(b)–(c) … 589 s 2(4) … 645 s 3 … 589, 650 s 3(1) … 589 s 3(1)(b) … 589 s 3(2) … 589 s 3(5) … 589 s 4(1)–(6) … 589 ss 5–6 … 588 s 6 … 650 s 7(5) … 588 s 8 … 588 s 11(4) … 593 s 12(1)(g) … 588 s 16(6) … 569 Oxford University Act 1860, s 2 … 253 Parliament Act 1911, s 3 … 515 Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 … 600–1 s 5 … 601 s 8(4) … 503 s 9 … 884 s 10(5) … 383 s 11 … 601, 873

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 11(2) … 602 s 11(2)-(3) … 601 s 11(3) … 602, 874 s 11(5) … 601 s 11AA … 601 s 11AA(2) … 601 s 12(3) … 20 Sch 2 … 20, 252–3, 601, 606 Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992, s 2 … 370–1 Peerage Act 1963 … 313 s 1(1) … 313 s 1(3) … 313 Sch 1, para 3 … 313 Pilotage Act 1987 … 277, 318 s 14 … 317, 319 Planning Act 2008, s 190(4) … 306 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 s 118(1) … 306 Sch 6, paras 1, 3 … 306 Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 … 276, 304, 307 s 28(1)(a) … 307 s 28(1)(aa) … 307 s 28(1)(b) … 307 s 28(1)(c) … 307 s 28(1)(d) … 307 s 28(3) … 308 Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 … 598 Police Act 1996 … 282 s 3 … 290, 311 s 80 … 873 Police Act 1997 … 123, 158, 580–1 Pt I … 581 Pt II … 581 Pt III … 578 Pt V … 158 s 1 … 581 s 2 … 581 ss 2-5 … 581 s 6 … 581 s 9 … 581 ss 10-11 … 581 s 12 … 573 s 46 … 581

s 90 … 581 s 115 … 388 s 134(1) … 573 Sch 9 para 60 … 573 para 61 … 573 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s 64A(4) … 873 s 78 … 344 Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, Pt VII … 598 Police Reform Act 2002, Pt 2 … 598 Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999, s 1 … 16 Postal Services Act 2000 … 277, 322 s 1(2) … 371 s 6(1) … 322 s 38 … 317 s 38(3)(a) … 322 s 38(3)(b) … 322 s 38(3)(c)-(e) … 322 s 38(4) … 322 s 38(8) … 322 s 38(9) … 322 Premium Savings Bond Regulations 1972, reg 30 … 873 Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, s 6 … 864 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 … 584 ss 2A-2B … 583 s 240 … 16 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, s 3(2)(a) … 343 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 … 397, 401–2, 464, 467, 857 s 6 … 33 s 11 … 33 s 11A … 33 s 11B … 33 s 19 … 33 ss 37-38 … 578 s115(1) … 578 Sch 9, Pt 3 … 578 Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 … 2–4, 275, 278–81 s 1(1) … 280

cxvii

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 1(2) … 280 s 1(3) … 280 s 1(4) … 280 s 1(4)(b) … 2 s 1(4)(c) … 281 Sch 1 … 279 para 1(gg) … 280 Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 … 531, 591, 685, 692, 771 s 1 … 816 Public Record Office Act 1838 … 245, 254 s 8 … 245 Public Record Office Act 1877 … 245 Public Record Office Act 1958 … 246 Public Records Act 1958 … 241, 245–6, 248–9, 252, 254–7, 259, 261, 263–4, 268–9, 321, 395, 399, 424, 608 s 1 … 247 s 1(2) … 247 s 1(2A) … 247, 251 s 2 … 247, 249 s 2(5) … 247 s 3 … 253–4, 256–8 s 3(3) … 257 s 3(4) … 257 s 3(5) … 255 s 3(6) … 256, 260 s 4 … 257 s 5 … 246, 258, 260 s 5(1) … 258 s 5(2) … 258 s 5(3) … 258, 261 s 5(5) … 261 s 6 … 258 s 6(4) … 254 s 7 … 254 s 7(1) … 254 s 8 … 253 s 8(1A) … 253 s 8(4) … 255 s 8(5) … 253 s 10 … 242, 251 s 10(1) … 251 s 10(2) … 251, 257 s 13(3) … 254 Sch 1 … 242, 251 para 2 … 251, 255 para 3 … 252, 255

cxviii

para 3A … 252 para 4 … 253, 255 para 4(1)(o) … 253 para 6 … 254 para 7 … 254 para 7(2) … 254 para 8 … 254–5 Sch 2 … 259 Public Records Act 1967 … 258 Public Records Act (Northern Ireland) 1923 … 395, 608 Radioactive Substances Act 1993 … 277, 319 s 4 … 319 s 25 … 320 s 34(3) … 320 s 39 … 317, 319–20 s 39(1) … 320 s 39(1)(a) … 319 s 39(1)(b) … 319 s 39(1)(c) … 320 s 39(1)(d) … 320 s 39(4) … 320 s 39(5) … 320 Railways Act 1993 … 277, 317, 320 s 72(1) … 320 s 72(2)(a) … 320 s 72(2)(b) … 320 s 72(2)(d) … 320 s 72(2)(da) … 320 s 72(2)(e) … 320 s 72(7) … 321 s 72(8) … 321 s 73(2)(a) … 321 s 73(2)(b) … 321 s 73(2)(c) … 321 s 73(2)(d)–(ga) … 321 s 73A … 321 Railways Act 2005 … 320 Pt 4 … 320 Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997 … 667 Registration Service Act 1953 … 313 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 … 161, 567, 571, 577–8, 589, 599–600 Pt I … 577 Pt II … 577 s 5 … 577

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 5(3) … 617 s 6(2)(a)–(d) … 577 s 6(2)(i) … 577 s 7(3)(a) … 577 s 17 … 345, 592 s 19 … 589 ss 28-29 … 577 s 30 … 577 s 32 … 578 ss 33-40 … 578 s 41 … 578 s 42 … 577 s 44 … 577 s 57 … 600 ss 57–58 … 600 s 57(8) … 600 s 58 … 600 s 58(4)-(7) … 600 s 59 … 599 s 59(3) … 600 ss 59–60 … 599 s 59(8) … 599 s 59A … 599 s 60 … 600 s 61 … 600 s 62(2)(a) … 578 s 65 … 561, 567, 577, 638 s 65(2)(b)-(d) … 578 s 65(4)-(11) … 578 ss 65–69 … 577 s 69(6)(b) … 578 s 70 … 577 s 74 … 577 s 81(1) … 569, 642 s 82(2) … 577, 599 Sch 1 para 2 … 577 para 5-6 … 577 Sch 3 … 577 Sch 5 … 577, 599 Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, s 43(3) … 380 Representation of the People Act 1983 … 276, 301 s 66(3) … 873 Sch 1 para 55(1) … 301 para 57 … 279, 301 para 57(1) … 301 Reserve Forces Act 1996 … 643

Resumption in Civil Employment Act 1944 … 253 Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 s 10 … 306 s 17(1) … 306 School Standards and Framework Act 1998 … 372 s 69(3) … 331 s 84(6) … 328 Scotland Act 1998 … 27–8, 124, 371, 374, 377, 380, 382, 561–2, 569, 610, 649–50, 667, 859, 869 s 27(2)(b) … 124 s 28 … 27, 561, 869 s 28(1) … 27 s 28(7) … 27 s 29 … 27, 561, 869 ss 29-30 … 561–2, 860, 869 s 29(1) … 28 s 29(2)(a) … 27 s 29(2)(b) … 27–8 s 29(3) … 610, 869 s 30 … 561, 650, 864 s 30(1) … 27 ss 44–49 … 667 ss 53-54 … 561 s 99 … 670 s 126(6)–(7) … 667 s 126(7(a) … 667 s 126(7)(a) … 667 s 126(8) … 667 Sch 4, Pt I, paras 2, 3 … 561 Sch 5 … 27–8, 124, 561–2 Pt I para 1 … 561, 869 para 2(3) … 864, 869 para 2(4) … 561 para 7 … 650 para 9(1)(a)–(d) … 561 Pt II s B8 … 561 s B13 … 562, 650, 860 Security Service Act 1989 … 568–9, 571–3, 589–90, 599, 616–17 s 1(1) … 572 s 1(2) … 573, 617 s 1(3) … 573 s 1(3)–(4) … 617 s 1(4) … 573, 582

cxix

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 2(1) … 572 s 2(2)(a) … 590, 617 s 2(2)(c) … 573, 582 s 2(3A)(b) … 599 s 2(4) … 572 s 3 … 577 s 4 … 599 s 5 … 568, 577 s 7(2) … 570 Sch 1 … 577 Sch 2 … 577 Security Service Act 1996 … 561 s 1(1) … 573 Senior Courts Act 1981 s 31(7) … 435 s 33 … 332 s 34 … 341 s 34(2)(b) … 341 s 35(1) … 341 s 42 … 907 s 124 … 253 s 151(1) … 702 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 … 581–2, 584 Pt 1 … 580 s 1 … 582 s 2(1) … 583 s 2(3)-(4) … 583 s 2A … 583 s 3 … 583 s 4 … 583 s 5 … 583 ss 6-7 … 583 ss 9-10 … 583 s 21 … 582 ss 23-28 … 583 ss 32-36 … 583 s 38 … 583 ss 43–50 … 582 s 59 … 567, 573, 581–2 s 174(2) … 581 s 179 … 582 Sch 1 … 582 para 1 … 582 paras 8-9 … 582 para 20 … 582 Sch 4 para 55 … 582 paras 55–56 … 573

cxx

para 57 … 573, 582 paras 94–95 … 581 paras 94–96 … 581 paras 158–159 … 567 para 162 … 581 para 166 … 581 Sch 17, Pt 2 … 581 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 … 883 Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, s 59 … 874 Sovereign Grant Act 2011 … 860 Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 s 2 … 371 s 6(1) … 467 s 39 … 873 Statistics of Trade Act 1947 … 259 Taxes Management Act 1970 … 536, 943 s 20(1) … 722 Tithes Act 1936, s 36(3) … 255 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 … 197, 276, 304, 306 s 2F … 281 s 10 … 195 s 61E … 306 s 69(1) … 306 s 69(2)(a) … 306 s 69(2)(b) … 306 s 69(5) … 306 s 69(8) … 306 s 96A … 306 s 188 … 307 s 191 … 307 s 192 … 307 Trade Descriptions Act 1968, s 24(1)(a) … 358 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 … 790 s 183 … 503 s 247(3) … 371 s 259(2) … 371 Transport Act 2000 … 277, 322 s 5(1) … 322 s 35 … 317 s 35(1) … 322 s 35(3) … 322

TABLES OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION s 35(4) … 322 s 35(7) … 323 s 35(8) … 323 s 35(9) … 323 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 … 621, 900–1, 928–9 s 3(5) … 906 s 4(3)(c) … 901 s 8(1)(a) … 901 s 9 … 930 s 11 … 238, 905–6, 929 s 12 … 930 s 13 … 238, 930 s 13(4) … 930 s 13(8) … 239, 930 s 13(8)(a)-(b) … 932 s 14 … 930 ss 15-21 … 907 s 22 … 904 s 23 … 904 s 23(2) … 658 s 24(3) … 658 s 25 … 907 s 25(1) and (2) … 907 s 27 … 907 s 27(1) … 506, 645, 658, 663–4 s 27(3) … 665 s 29(4) … 906 s 36(7) … 658 Schs 2-4 … 901 Sch 4 paras 9-12 … 901 para 14 … 901 para 15 … 901

s 1 … 891 s 12 … 503 Sch I, Pt I, para 14(a) … 891 Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 … 703 s 1(2) … 884 Union with Scotland Act 1706, preamble, art 1 … 642, 666, 671 Utilities Act 2000, s 1(2) … 371 Value Added Tax Act 1994, s 96(1) … 358 Visiting Forces Act 1952 … 643 Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act 1933, ss 4–5 … 643 Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 … 276, 309 s 32(7)(c) … 309 s 32(7)(d) … 309 Water Industry Act 1991 … 276, 308 Pt II … 308 s 1A(2) … 371 s 195(4) … 308 s 195(5) … 309 Water Resources Act 1991 … 309 s 189 … 309 Welsh Language Act 1993 … 465 Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, s 31(1) … 323 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, ss 44-45 … 883

Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958, s 11 … 503 Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971, s 14 … 503 Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 … 891

cxxi

TABLES OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Environmental Information Regulations 1992 … 17, 189, 192–3, 224–5, 227–8, 231, 233–4, 236, 651, 852–3 reg 2(1)(b) … 203 reg 4(2)(a) … 224 reg 4(2)(b) … 224, 227 reg 4(2)(d) … 222–3 reg 4(2)(e) … 227, 236 reg 4(3)(a) … 216 reg 4(3)(d) … 236 Environmental Information Regulations 2004 … 4–9, 27, 31–2, 37, 105, 125–6, 152, 182, 185, 190–1, 194, 198–203, 205, 208–17, 219–20, 227–9, 231, 233, 236–7, 239–40, 246, 260–3, 265, 268–70, 278, 304, 317, 343, 350–1, 354–6, 361, 363–6, 368–70, 378–9, 383–5, 392, 395, 406, 412, 414, 416, 418, 420, 424–7, 430, 433, 445, 447–8, 451, 454, 457–8, 462, 465, 472, 478, 482, 494, 500, 503–4, 509, 511–13, 515–17, 521, 527, 543, 548, 551–3, 556, 558, 563, 569, 588, 596, 616, 622–3, 628, 630–2, 651–2, 666, 672, 681–2, 694, 705, 707–9, 731, 745, 766, 771, 775, 778, 780–1, 793–4, 799–800, 808, 838, 844, 847, 851–3, 857, 863, 870, 880, 890–1, 895, 899–900, 903, 910, 913, 916, 921–2, 931, 941–4 Pt 3 … 6, 354, 683 reg 2(1) … 7, 191–2, 199, 269–70, 355–6, 358, 411, 472 reg 2(2) … 201, 370, 379, 707 reg 2(2)(a)-(b) … 370 reg 2(2)(b) … 378 reg 2(2)(b)(i) … 204 reg 2(2)(b)(ii) … 373 reg 2(4) … 231, 778–9, 781 reg 2(5) … 218 reg 3(2) … 204, 361, 363, 454 reg 3(3) … 203, 230 reg 3(4) … 473, 484, 490, 708–9 reg 3(5) … 211, 227, 363, 370, 801 reg 4 … 206, 480 reg 4(1) … 204 reg 4(1)(a) … 622 reg 4(3) … 482, 558, 616 reg 5 … 263, 410 reg 5(1) … 201, 204, 261, 272, 354, 379, 410–11, 454, 457, 464, 472–3, 478, 482, 558, 622 reg 5(2) … 210, 420, 487 reg 5(3) … 126, 231, 484, 490, 532, 774–5, 777 reg 5(4) … 200

cxxii

reg 5(6) … 216, 236, 385, 591, 870, 941 reg 6(1) … 206, 209, 211, 464, 466, 472 reg 6(1)(b) … 216, 222, 543, 716 reg 7(1) … 208, 487 reg 8 … 416 reg 8(1) … 208 reg 8(1)-(2) … 209 reg 8(2)(b) … 209 reg 8(3) … 209 reg 8(5) … 209 reg 8(5)–(6) … 422 reg 8(5)–(7) … 209 reg 9 … 200, 215 reg 9(1) … 207, 211, 390, 414 reg 9(2) … 208, 413, 415 reg 9(3) … 207 reg 10 … 427 reg 10(1) … 210 reg 10(2) … 211 reg 10(2)–(3) … 200 reg 11 … 237, 913 reg 11(1)–(2) … 212 reg 11(4) … 213 reg 12 … 558, 615, 622–4, 633, 638, 641, 647 reg 12(1) … 217–18, 354, 472–3, 484, 486, 501, 622, 778, 852 reg 12(1)–(2) … 558 reg 12(1)(a) … 615, 641 reg 12(1)(b) … 191, 214–15, 234–7, 496, 520, 559, 616, 624, 647, 682, 693–4, 700, 771, 853–4 reg 12(2) … 217, 479, 492, 494, 559, 616, 625, 638 reg 12(3) … 126, 214, 217–18, 231, 457, 484, 490, 532, 774–5, 777–8, 800 reg 12(3)–(5) … 160, 214 reg 12(4) … 231, 447 reg 12(4)(a) … 364–5 reg 12(4)a) … 200 reg 12(4)(a)–(c) … 214 reg 12(4)(b) … 209, 215, 369, 449, 451, 456, 543 reg 12(4)(c) … 209, 215, 456 reg 12(4)(d) … 193, 214, 222, 490 reg 12(4)(d)-(e) … 748 reg 12(4)(e) … 214–16, 227, 490, 732 reg 12(5) … 214, 221, 488, 491 reg 12(5)(a) … 223, 558, 563, 615, 641, 651, 765 reg 12(5)(b) … 216, 224, 228, 351, 692–4, 700–1, 717, 790, 880 reg 12(5)(c) … 236 reg 12(5)(d) … 216, 226

TABLES OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION reg 12(5)(d)–(f) … 383 reg 12(5)(e) … 216, 229, 234–5, 844, 847, 853 reg 12(5)(f) … 216, 233, 800, 852 reg 12(5)(g) … 236 reg 12(6) … 213, 457, 472, 477, 616, 622, 624, 638, 647, 664, 773 reg 12(6)–(7) … 213, 484, 559 reg 12(7) … 213, 616, 638–9 reg 12(8) … 216, 227 reg 12(9) … 217, 223, 227, 231, 233–4, 236–7, 852–4 reg 12(10) … 228 reg 12(11) … 213, 463, 473 reg 13 … 126, 231, 383, 774–5, 777, 790, 800 reg 13(1) … 231, 779, 790 reg 13(2) … 212, 423 reg 13(2)–(3) … 775, 779 reg 13(2)(a)(i) … 232 reg 13(2)(a)(ii) … 232, 779–80, 793 reg 13(2)(b) … 232, 780, 793 reg 13(3) … 233, 779, 794 reg 13(5) … 775 reg 13(5)(a) … 781, 793–4 reg 13(5)(b) … 794 reg 14 … 458 reg 14(1) … 212 reg 14(3) … 212 reg 14(4) … 223 reg 14(5) … 212, 237 reg 15 … 9, 218, 517–18, 628 reg 15(1) … 487, 501–3, 505, 509, 511–13, 629–31, 639 reg 15(2) … 502, 511, 630 reg 15(3)(b) … 513, 631 reg 15(6) … 502, 511, 631

reg 16 … 207, 392 reg 16(1) … 206 reg 16(5) … 393–4, 396, 407, 895, 899 reg 17 … 205, 265, 269, 528 reg 17(1) … 271 reg 17(1)(a) … 273 reg 17(2) … 270–1 reg 17(3)–(4) … 271 reg 17(3)(a) … 273 reg 17(3)(c) … 272–3 reg 17(4)(a) … 273 reg 18 … 8–9, 239–40, 394, 472, 501, 511, 514, 517, 895, 899–900, 903, 905, 913, 922, 941–4 reg 18(1) … 8–9, 213, 238, 511, 513, 630–1 reg 18(1)–(7) … 209 reg 18(2) … 896 reg 18(2)-(3) … 487 reg 18(3) … 218, 238, 513, 631 reg 18(3)-(4) … 511, 630–1 reg 18(4) … 238, 913 reg 18(4)(a)-(b) … 513, 631 reg 18(4)(a)(i) … 513, 632 reg 18(6) … 9 reg 18(7) … 9, 218, 511–13, 630–2, 906, 921 reg 18(7)(a) … 511, 513, 631 reg 18(10) … 897 reg 19 … 240 reg 19(1) … 200, 366, 944 reg 19(2) … 366, 944 reg 19(3) … 366, 944 reg 19(4) … 366, 944 reg 19(5) … 944

Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 … 5–6, 8–9, 29, 31, 105, 125–6, 185, 190, 201, 204, 211, 214, 217–18, 227, 238, 269–70, 361, 366, 368–70, 379, 382, 384, 392, 406, 414, 416, 430, 433, 457–8, 462, 464–5, 472, 478, 482, 527, 551, 558, 563, 651, 666, 672, 681–2, 705, 709, 731, 766, 771, 778, 781, 793–4, 799, 801, 838, 844, 851–2, 895–6, 899, 916, 919, 921, 928, 942–4 Pt 3 … 354 reg 2(1) … 7, 191–2, 199, 201, 355–6, 358, 411, 472, 563

reg 2(2) … 204, 363–4, 382 reg 2(2)(a)–(b) … 379 reg 2(3) … 231, 778–9, 781 reg 2(4) … 218 reg 3(2) … 203, 230, 361 reg 3(3) … 454, 480, 482 reg 4 … 206 reg 4(1) … 204 reg 5 … 410 reg 5(1) … 201, 204, 207, 354, 382, 410–11, 454, 457, 472–3, 478

cxxiii

TABLES OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION reg 5(2) … 210, 487 reg 5(2)(b) … 563 reg 5(3) … 216, 236, 385, 591, 870, 941 reg 6(1) … 199, 206, 211, 464, 466, 472 reg 6(1)(b) … 216, 222, 543 reg 7(1) … 208, 487 reg 8 … 416 reg 8(1) … 208 reg 8(2)(b) … 209 reg 8(3) … 209 reg 8(5)–(6) … 209 reg 8(6) … 209 reg 8(6)–(7) … 210, 422 reg 9 … 215 reg 9(1) … 207, 211, 390, 414 reg 9(2) … 208, 413, 415 reg 9(3) … 207 reg 9(4) … 210 reg 10 … 563, 616 reg 10(1) … 217–18, 354, 472–3, 484, 486, 563, 852 reg 10(1)–(2) … 563, 615, 641 reg 10(1)(b) … 191, 214–15, 234–7, 496, 520, 682, 693–4, 700, 771, 853–4 reg 10(2) … 217, 479, 492, 494, 559, 563 reg 10(2)(b) … 616 reg 10(3) … 126, 214, 217–18, 231, 457, 484, 490, 532, 774–5, 777–8, 800 reg 10(3)–(5) … 160, 214 reg 10(4) … 231, 447, 486 reg 10(4)-(5) … 615, 641 reg 10(4)(a) … 364–5 reg 10(4)(a)-(c) … 214 reg 10(4)(b) … 209, 215, 369, 451, 456, 543, 559 reg 10(4)(c) … 209, 215, 456 reg 10(4)(d) … 193, 214, 222, 490, 549 reg 10(4)(e) … 214, 216, 227, 490, 732 reg 10(5) … 214, 221, 486, 488, 491 reg 10(5)(a) … 223, 563, 615, 641, 651, 765 reg 10(5)(b) … 216, 224, 693–4, 700–1, 880 reg 10(5)(c) … 236 reg 10(5)(d) … 216, 226, 717 reg 10(5)(d)–(f) … 383 reg 10(5)(e) … 216, 234, 844, 847, 853 reg 10(5)(f) … 216, 233, 717, 800, 852 reg 10(5)(g) … 236 reg 10(6) … 227, 231, 233–4, 236–7, 852–4

cxxiv

reg 10(6)–(7) … 559 reg 10(7) … 213, 463, 473 reg 10(7)–(8) … 484 reg 10(8) … 213, 457, 472, 477–8, 664, 773 reg 10(8)–(9) … 213, 564, 616, 638 reg 10(9) … 213 reg 11 … 774–5, 777, 800 reg 11(1) … 126, 214, 217–18, 231, 484, 490, 532, 775, 777 reg 11(2) … 231, 775, 779, 790 reg 11(2)–(5) … 126 reg 11(3)–(4) … 775, 779 reg 11(3)(a)(i) … 232 reg 11(3)(a)(ii) … 232, 779–80, 793 reg 11(3)(b) … 232, 780, 793 reg 11(4) … 233, 779, 794 reg 11(6) … 775, 778, 781, 793–4 reg 12 … 9, 218, 383, 501, 511, 630 reg 12(1) … 487, 933 reg 12(4)(a) … 200 reg 13 … 458 reg 13(a) … 212, 423 reg 13(c) … 212 reg 13(d) … 223 reg 13(e) … 212 reg 14(1) … 210 reg 14(2) … 200, 211 reg 15 … 205, 265, 269, 528 reg 15(8) … 270 reg 16 … 8, 237, 913 reg 16(1)–(2) … 212 reg 16(4) … 213 reg 16(5) … 237 reg 17 … 9, 209, 213, 238–9, 472, 896, 899, 919, 928, 941–4 reg 17. … 8 reg 17(1) … 240, 896 reg 17(2) … 487 reg 17(5) … 897 reg 18 … 207, 392 reg 18(5) … 239, 393–4, 407, 896, 899 reg 19 … 240 reg 19(1) … 200, 366, 944 reg 19(2) … 366, 944 reg 19(3) … 366, 944 reg 19(4) … 366, 944

TABLES OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION

Other UK Secondary Legislation Abortion Regulations 1991, reg 5 … 872 Access to Personal Files (Housing) Regulations 1989 … 17 Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations 1989 … 17 Act of Sederunt (Child Care and Maintenance Rules) 1997 … 163–4, 166 Appeals from the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeal Order 2008 SI 2008/2834 … 930 Asian Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974 SI 1974/1251 … 655 Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Planning Committee Order 2009 SI 2009/2467 art 9(1) … 281 Sch, para 7 … 281 Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Membership, Committee and Procedure) Regulations 2005 … 303–4 reg 21(1) … 304 reg 21(2) … 304 Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Rules 1996 … 163–4, 166 Civil Procedure Rules (as amended) … 174, 332–3, 335, 338–40, 342, 658, 682, 702, 722, 802, 872, 882, 935–6 r 2.1 … 936 r 5, PD, para 4.2A … 342 r 5.4 … 342 r 5.4B … 342 r 7 … 337 r 8 … 337, 936 r 18.2 … 593 r 21.3 … 344 r 24 … 802 r 26.5 … 936 r 26.7(2) … 936 r 27.2(2)(b) … 337 r 27.4(1) … 337 r 27.4(1)(a) … 340 r 27.6 … 340 r 28, PD … 339 para 3.6(1)(c) … 338 para 3.6(4) … 338

r 31 … 331, 340, 515 PD para 2A.1 … 338 para 2A.2 … 338 para 2A.3 … 339 para 2A.4 … 339 para 2A.5 … 339 para 5.2 … 339 para 5.3 … 339 para 5.4 … 340 para 9.7 … 341 r 31.4 … 331, 358 r 31.6 … 337 r 31.6(a) … 338 r 31.8 … 338 r 31.9(1) … 340 r 31.9(2) … 340 r 31.10(1)–(3) … 340 r 31.10(4) … 340 r 31.10(5) … 341 r 31.10(6) … 341 r 31.12 … 339 r 31.14 … 341 r 31.16(3)(a) … 332 r 31.16(3)(b) … 332 r 31.16(3)(c) … 332 r 31.16(3)(d) … 332 r 31.16(4) … 332 r 31.16(5) … 332 r 31.17 … 341 r 31.17(2) … 341 r 31.17(3) … 341 r 31.17(4) … 341 r 31.18 … 335 r 31.19 … 591 r 31.22 … 342, 593, 873, 882 r 32.12 … 593 r 34 … 515 r 34.2(1) … 343 r 34.3 … 343 r 35.9 … 340 r 39.1, PD … 593 r 39.2(3) … 593 r 39.2(3)(b) … 593 r 39.2(4) … 593 r 52 … 930, 936 PD, paras 2A.1, 2A.2 and 2A.6 … 936 r 52.3 … 936 r 52.3(1)(a)(i) … 943

cxxv

TABLES OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION r 54 … 931 PD, para 12.1 … 338 r 54.3(2) … 435 r 54.5(1) … 421 r 81 … 945 r 81.4(3) … 943, 945 r 81.15 … 943 r 81.15(2) … 943 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provision) Order 2011 SI 2011/46, art 3 … 857 Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 SI 1913/1616, r 11 … 593 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Service of Prosecution Evidence) Regulations 2005 SI 2005/902 reg 2 … 344 reg 3 … 344 Criminal Appeal Rules 1968, r 19 … 342 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Defence Disclosure Time Limits) Regulations 2011 SI 2011/204, regs 2 and 3 … 346 Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 … 344, 515, 591 r 16.6 … 593 r 21.2 … 344 r 22 … 347, 593 r 22.3(2)(b)(ii) … 347–8 r 22.3(2)(b)(iii) … 347 r 22.3(5)(b) … 348 r 22.3(6) … 348 r 22.3(7) … 348 r 22.3(7)(a)(i) … 348 r 22.3(8) … 348 r 22.3(9) … 348 r 22.6 … 348 r 22.7 … 352 r 28 … 349 r 28.3(2)(b)(ii) … 349 r 28.5(4)(b) … 349 r 28.6(1)(b) … 349 r 28.7(1)(b)(iii) … 349 r 28.7(1)(c)(iii) … 349 r 69 … 593 Data Protection (Corporate Finance Exemption) Order 2000 SI 2000/184 … 679

cxxvi

art 2 … 888 art 2(2) … 172 art 2(3) … 172, 888 Data Protection (Crown Appointments) Order 2000 SI 2000/416 … 171, 887 Data Protection (Functions of Designated Authority) Order 2000 SI 2000/186, art 4 … 132, 893 Data Protection (International Co-operation) Order 2000 SI 2000/190 … 893 Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) (Amendment) Order 2000 SI 2000/1865 … 173, 889 Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order 2000 SI 2000/419 … 173, 889 art 2 … 173, 889 Sch Pt I … 173, 889 Pt II(a) … 173 Pt II(b) … 173, 889 Pt II(c) … 173, 889 Pt III(b) … 173 Pt III(c) … 173, 889 Pt III(d) … 173, 889 Pt IV(b) … 173, 889 Pt IV(c) … 173, 889 Data Protection (Subject Access) (Fees and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2000 … 8, 154 reg 2(1) … 151, 414 reg 2(2) … 151, 414 reg 2(3) … 151, 414 reg 3 … 153 reg 5 … 154 reg 5(4) … 156 reg 6 … 154–5 Sch … 154 Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Education) Order 2000 SI 2000/414 … 137, 164 art 3(2)(a) … 165 art 4 … 164 art 5(1) … 164 art 5(2)–(5) … 165 Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 2000 SI 2000/413 … 137, 163, 773 art 4 … 163

TABLES OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION art 5 … 163 art 5(2) … 163 art 5(3)–(4) … 164 art 6(2) … 163 art 7 … 163 Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) Order 2000 SI 2000/415 … 137, 165–6 art 3(1) … 166 art 3(2)(a) … 166 art 5(1) … 166 art 5(1)-(2) … 166 art 5(3)-(4) … 166 art 6 … 166 Sch para 1 … 166 para 2 … 166 Deposits in the Sea (Public Registers of Information) Regulations 1996 … 305 Disclosure of Adoption Information (Post-Commencement Adoptions) Regulations 2005 reg 19(1) … 314 reg 19(2) … 315 reg 20(1) … 315 reg 21 … 314 Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, art 2(2) … 424 Education (Pupil Information) (England) Regulations 2005 reg 3 … 329 reg 5(2) … 329 reg 5(3) … 329 reg 5(4) … 329 reg 6(7) … 326 reg 8 … 326 Sch 1 … 325 Education (School Information) (England) Regulations 2008 SI 2008/3093 … 325 Education (School Sessions and Charges and Remissions Policies) (Information) (England) Regulations 1999, reg 3 … 325 Electricity (Register) Order 1990, arts 3 and 4 … 319 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 SI 2013/1237, Sch 1 … 515

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, para 31 … 515 Environmental Information (Amendment) Regulations 1998 SI 1998/1447 … 189 European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1991 SI 1991/757 … 655 European Parliamentary Elections Rules 2004, Sch 1, para 61 … 301 European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1978 SI 1978/1105 … 655 Exercise of Functions by Local Councillors (Written Records) Regulations 2009 … 287 Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 SI 1998/3162 … 503 Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 … 163–4, 166 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disclosure of Confidential Information) Regulations 2001 SI 2001/2188 … 878 First-tier and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Order 2008 SI 2008/2835 … 901 para 3 … 902 para 4 … 902 paras 6-8 … 902 First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Chambers) Order 2008 … 900 First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Chambers) Order 2008 SI 2008/2684 … 900 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Commencement No 1) Order 2001 SI 2001/1637, art 2(d) … 865 Freedom of Information Act (Commencement No 1) Order 2001 SI 2001/1637 … 26 Freedom of Information Act (Commencement No 2) Order 2002 SI 2002/2812 … 26 Freedom of Information Act (Commencement No 3) Order 2003 SI

cxxvii

TABLES OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION 2003/2603 … 27 Freedom of Information Act (Commencement No 4) Order 2004 SI 2004/1909 … 27, 717 Freedom of Information Act (Commencement No 5) Order 2004 SI 2004/3122 … 27 Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2002 SI 2002/2623 … 33, 373, 375 Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2003 SI 2003/1882 … 33, 373 Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2004 SI 2004/938 … 33 Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2005 SI 2005/3593 … 33, 373 Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2008 SI 2008/1271 … 33, 373 Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2010 SI 2010/937 … 33 Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2011 SI 2011/1041 … 33 Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 SI 2004/3244 … 153, 159, 398, 416–18, 420, 440, 442, 444, 455, 466 reg 3(2) … 442 reg 3(2)(b) … 442 reg 3(3) … 442 reg 4 … 159 reg 4(1) … 440 reg 4(2)(a) … 440 reg 4(2)(b) … 440 reg 4(3) … 441, 455 reg 4(3)(a) … 440 reg 4(3)(b) … 440 reg 4(3)(c) … 440 reg 4(3)(d) … 440 reg 4(4) … 441–2, 445 reg 5(1) … 440, 442 reg 5(2) … 442 reg 5(2)(b) … 443

cxxviii

reg 5(3) … 442 reg 6(1) … 418 reg 6(2) … 418 reg 6(3) … 418 reg 6(4) … 418 reg 7(2)(b) … 444–5 reg 7(3) … 444 reg 7(4)(a) … 444 reg 7(4)(b) … 445 reg 7(4)(c) … 445 reg 7(5) … 445 Freedom of Information (Definition of Historical Records) (Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2012 SI 2012/3029 … 264 Freedom of Information (Excluded Welsh Authorities) Order 2002 SI 2002/2832 … 32, 378 Freedom of Information (Fees for Disclosure under section 13) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 … 420, 444–5 reg 3 … 441 reg 3(1) … 445 reg 3(2)(a) … 445 reg 3(2)(b) … 445 reg 4 … 445 Freedom of Information (Fees for Required Disclosure) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 SSI 2004 /467 … 416–18, 442 reg 3 … 441 reg 3(1) … 418 reg 3(2)(a) … 418 reg 3(2)(b) … 419 reg 4 … 418 reg 4(2) … 419 reg 4(3) … 419 reg 4(4) … 417 reg 5 … 442–3 reg 6 … 443 reg 6(a) … 443 reg 6(b) … 443 reg 6(c) … 443 reg 6(d) … 443 reg 6(e) … 443 Freedom of Information (Parliament and National Assembly for Wales) Order 2008 SI 2008 … 32 Freedom of Information (Removal and Relaxation of Statutory Prohibitions on Disclosure of Information) Order

TABLES OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION 2004 SI 2004/3363 … 874, 877–8 Freedom of Information (Removal of References to Public Authorities) Order 2003 SI 2003/1883 … 33, 375 Freedom of Information (Removal of References to Public Authorities) Order 2004 SI 2004/1641 … 33, 375 Freedom of Information (Removal of References to Public Authorities) Order 2005 SI 2005/3594 … 33, 375 Freedom of Information (Removal of References to Public Authorities) Order 2010 SI 2010/939 … 33 Freedom of Information (Removal of References to Public Authorities) Order 2011 SI 2011/1042 … 33 Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act (Commencement No 1) Order 2002 SSI 2002/437 … 29 Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act (Commencement No 2) Order 2003 SSI 2003/477 … 29 Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act (Commencement No 3) Order 2004 SSI 2004/203 … 29 Freedom of Information (Time for Compliance with Request) Regulations 2004 SI 2004/3364 … 423–4 reg 3(2) … 424 reg 4(2) … 424 reg 5(1) … 425 reg 5(2) … 425 reg 5(3) … 425 reg 5(3)(b) … 425 reg 6(1)(a) … 426 reg 6(1)(a)(i) … 425 reg 6(1)(a)(ii) … 425 reg 6(1)(b) … 425–6 reg 6(2) … 425–6 reg 6(3) … 425–6 reg 6(3)(b) … 425 Freedom of Information (Time for Compliance with Request) Regulations 2009 SI 2009/1369 … 423–4 reg 2(2) … 424 reg 2(3) … 424 Freedom of Information (Time for Compliance with Request)

Regulations 2010 SI 2010/2768 … 423–4 reg 2(2) … 424 reg 2(3) … 424 Government of Wales Act 2006 (Consequential Modifications and Transitional Provisions) Order 2007 SI 2007/1388, Sch 1, para 80 … 32, 666, 668 Greater London Authority Elections Rules 2004 Sch 1, para 50 … 301 Sch 2, para 53 … 301 Sch 3, para 55 … 301 INSPIRE Regulations 2003 SI 2003/2426 … 894 reg 31 … 893 reg 32 … 893 INSPIRE Regulations 2009 SI 2009/3157, reg 11 … 890–1, 893–4, 903 INSPIRE (Scotland) Regulations 2009 … 896 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1988 General Capital Increase) Order 1988 SI 1988/1486 … 655 International Finance Corporation (1991 General Capital Increase) Order 1993 SI 1993/1059 … 655 Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000 SI 2000/2665 … 577 r 6 … 578 Justice and Security Act 2013 (Commencement, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2013 SI 2013/1482, art 3 … 585 Land Registration Rules 2003 SI 2003/1417 … 312 Pt 13 … 312 r 136(1) … 312 Local Authorities (Armorial Bearings) Order 2006 SI 2006/3330 … 865 Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2000 … 296 Local Authorities (England) (Charges for Property Searches) Regulations 2008 SI 2008/3248 … 313 Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England)

cxxix

TABLES OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION Regulations 2000 … 296, 298 reg 2 … 296–8 reg 3 … 297 reg 3(1) … 296 reg 3(2) … 297 reg 3(3) … 296 reg 3(4) … 296 reg 4 … 297 reg 4(3) … 296 reg 4(4) … 297 reg 5(1) … 297 reg 5(2) … 297 reg 6 … 298 reg 7(1) … 298 reg 7(2)(a) … 298 reg 7(2)(b) … 298 reg 7(2A) … 298 reg 8(1) … 297–8 reg 8(2) … 297 reg 9 … 298 reg 10 … 298, 300 reg 11(1) … 299 reg 11(2) … 299 reg 11(3) … 300 reg 11(3)(a) … 300 reg 11(4) … 300 reg 11(5) … 300 reg 11(6) … 300 reg 12 … 298 reg 13 … 298 reg 13(1) … 298 reg 14 … 298 reg 15 … 300 reg 16 … 300 reg 17 … 300 reg 17(1) … 300 reg 17(3) … 301 reg 21 … 298, 300 reg 21(1)(a) … 299 reg 21(1)(b) … 299 reg 21(1)(c) … 299 reg 21(1)(d) … 299 reg 21(2) … 299 reg 21(3) … 299 reg 21(5) … 299 reg 22 … 300 reg 23 … 300 Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) (Wales) Regulations 2001 … 296

cxxx

Local Elections (Parishes and Communities) Rules 2006 Sch 2, para 53 … 301 Sch 3, para 53 … 301 Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 Sch 2, para 53 … 301 Sch 3, para 53 … 301 Magistrates’ Courts (Children and Young Persons) Rules 1992 … 163–4, 166 Magistrates’ Courts (Criminal Justice (Children)) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1999 … 163–4, 166 National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1992 … 280 Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) Order 2002 SI 2002/2574, art 2 … 562 Official Secrets Act 1989 (Commencement) Order 1990 SI 1990/199 … 569 Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) (Amendment) Order 2003 SI 2003/1918 art 2(3) … 588 Sch 2 … 588 Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) Order 1990 … 588 Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) Order 1990 SI 1990/200 Sch 2 … 588 Sch 3 … 588 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974 SI 1974/1258 … 656 Parliamentary Commissioner Order 2008 SI 2008/3115, Sch 2 … 606 Pensions Appeals Tribunals (Scotland) Rules, r 6 … 87 Planning Act 2008 (Commencement No 5 and Saving) Order 2010, art 3(b) … 306 Postal Services Commission (Register) Order 2001 … 322 Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 SI 2003/2426 … 891, 893, 900

TABLES OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION reg 28 … 503 Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) (National Health Service Trusts) Order 1997 … 280 art 2 … 280 Public Contracts Regulations 2006, reg 43 … 385, 873 Public Record Office (Fees) Regulations 2012 SI 2012/1665 … 247 Public Records (Transfer to the Public Record Office) (Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2012 SI 2012/3028 … 257 Public Service Contracts Regulations 1993, reg 30 … 873 Railways (Register) Order 1994 art 2 … 321 art 3 … 321 Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums Order 2004, Sch 1, para 65 … 301 Registration of Births and Deaths Regulations 1987 SI 1987/2088 … 313 Registration of Marriage Regulations 1986 SI 1986/1442 … 314 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Commencement No 1 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2000 SI 2000/2543 … 577 Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Cover Human Intelligence Sources) Order 2010 SI 2010/521 … 577 Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 art 25 … 306 arts 29-31 … 306 School Information (England) Regulations 2008 SI 2008/3093 … 327–8 Pt 3 … 326 reg 5(1) … 328 reg 9(1)(b) … 328 reg 9(1)(c) … 328 reg 9(1)(d) … 328 reg 10(1) … 325 reg 10(2) … 325 reg 10(3) … 325 reg 10(4) … 325

reg 10(5) … 325 Sch 2 … 328 para 1 … 326 Pt 2 … 326 para 11 … 326 Sch 3 … 326–8 para 2 … 326 paras 3 and 4 … 327 para 8 … 327 para 11 … 327 para 12 … 327 para 13 … 327 para 14 … 327 para 15 … 328 para 16 … 328 Scottish Administration (Offices) Order 1999 SI 1999/1127 … 667 Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs Order 2003 SI 2003/1887 … 249, 373, 395 Secretary of State for Justice Order 2007 SI 2007/2128 … 249, 373, 395 Security Service Act 1989 (Commencement) Order 1989 SI 1989/2093 … 570 Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 SI 1976/1042, SI 1976/1042, art 53(2) … 505 Special Educational Needs (Provision of Information by Local Education Authorities) (England) Regulations 2001 reg 2, Sch 1 … 328 reg 3(1) … 329 reg 3(4) … 329 reg 3(5) … 329 Special Immigration Appeal Commission (Procedure) Rules 1998 SI 1998/1881 … 593 Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974 SI 1974/1260 … 656 Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008 SI 2008/1085 … 281 reg 8(1) … 281 reg 8(3)(a) … 282 reg 8(3)(b) … 284 reg 8(3)(c) … 286 reg 8(5) … 281 reg 8(6) … 281

cxxxi

TABLES OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION Statutory Harbour Undertakings (Pilotage Accounts) Regulations 1988, reg 5 … 319 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 … 192 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 … 188 Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 … 307 art 25 … 306 art 25(1) … 306 art 25(2) … 307 art 25(3) … 307 art 25(4) … 307 art 25(6) … 307 art 25(7) … 307 art 25(8) … 307 art 25A … 306 art 25A(1) … 307 art 25A(2) … 307 art 26 … 306 art 26(1) … 307 art 26(4) … 307 Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 SI 1992/1492, reg 3 … 283 Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 SI 2008/580 art 9(1) … 281 art 9(3)(a) … 283 art 9(3)(c) … 281 art 9(4) … 285 art 9(5)(a) … 288 art 9(5)(b) … 288 art 9(6) … 289 art 9(8) … 284 Transfer of Functions (Miscellaneous) Order 2001 SI 2001/3500 … 373, 395 Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2010 SI 2010/22 art 2(3) … 937–8 art 2(3)(a) … 900, 937 Sch 5, paras 2 and 3 … 904 Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules

cxxxii

2009 … 177, 900, 904–5, 917, 921, 926–9, 937–8 r 7(3) … 907 r 8 … 901, 904 r 8(3) … 902 r 8(3)(a) … 904 r 9 … 934 r 9(3) … 922 r 9(4) … 934 r 10 … 906 r 14(6) … 905, 925 r 14(10) … 905 r 15 … 905 r 19 … 900, 902, 904–5 r 19(1A) … 900, 902–3, 939 r 19(2) … 900 r 19(2)-(3) … 238 r 19(3) … 900 r 22 … 904 r 35(4) … 905 r 37(1) … 921 r 42 … 930 r 44 … 930 r 44(1) … 905 Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 … 177, 511, 631, 890, 904–5, 927, 930, 937, 939 Pt 3 … 905 r 1 … 904 r 9 … 934 r 9(3) … 922 r 9(4) … 934 r 10(1)(b) … 906 r 10(1A) … 906, 939 r 10(3)(d) … 939 r 14(11) … 939 r 14(5) … 928 r 14(6) … 928 r 14(10) … 905, 939 r 14(11) … 906 r 15(2) … 930 r 16 … 907 r 16(6)(b) … 907 r 26A … 905 r 26A(2) … 939 r 34 … 906 r 34(1) … 939 r 35(2) … 939 r 37 … 906 r 37(2A) … 939 r 37(4)(c) … 939

TABLES OF EU LEGISLATION r 39(1) … 921 r 40 … 906 r 44(4) … 930 r 44(7) … 930 Sch 2 … 939

Wireless Telegraphy (Register) Regulations 2004 reg 3 … 323 reg 4(1) … 323

United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974 SI 1974/1261 … 655

World Trade Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1995 SI 1995/266 … 656

TABLE OF EU LEGISLATION Charter of Fundamental Rights of The European Union … 103, 105 art 42 … 105, 663

Directive 93/22 … 171, 878, 888

recital 26 … 140, 143, 145 recital 27 … 135–6 recital 72 … 790 art 1 … 596 art 2 … 140 art 2(a) … 138, 140, 146 art 2(b) … 147 art 2(c) … 128, 134–5 art 2(d) … 146 art 3(1) … 128, 133 art 3(2) … 160 art 9 … 160, 168, 886 art 12 … 154 art 12(a) … 128–9, 148–50, 157, 159 art 13 … 162 art 13(1) … 160 art 13(1)(a)–(c) … 597 art 13(2) … 160 art 15 … 150 art 22 … 173 art 23 … 178 art 23(2) … 178 art 28 … 162, 893

Directive 93/36, art 15(2) … 385

Directive 2002/58 … 893

Directive 93/42, art 20 … 878

Directive 2003/4 … 5, 105–6, 182, 185, 189–96, 199, 201–4, 207–8, 211–13, 217–18, 222–3, 227, 230–1, 234, 236–9, 504, 517, 558, 596, 852–4 recitals … 237 recital 1 … 189, 219 recital 2 … 195 recital 6 … 189 recital 8 … 200–1, 219 recital 9 … 189, 205, 219 recital 10 … 192 recital 11 … 201–2 recital 14 … 205, 211, 222

Decision 93/731 … 13, 103–4, 106–8, 113, 116, 500, 538, 661 art 2(2) … 106 art 4 … 500 art 4(1) … 107 art 4(2) … 107 art 7(1) … 106 art 7(3) … 106 Decision 94/90 … 103–4, 106–9, 113, 116 Directive 76/207, art 6 … 505 Directive 90/220 … 878 art 19 … 878 art 19(1) … 879 art 19(5) … 879 Directive 90/313 … 17, 185, 189, 192, 209 art 2(a) … 357

Directive 95/46 … 17, 122, 128–9, 133, 135–6, 140, 145–7, 149–50, 154, 157, 159–60, 168, 173, 178, 231, 498, 504–6, 516, 518, 558, 562, 596–7, 624, 637, 641, 776, 788, 891, 893 recitals 1-3 … 596 recitals 7 … 596 recitals 9-11 … 596 recital 11 … 382 recital 14 … 143, 147 recital 16 … 597

cxxxiii

TABLES OF EU LEGISLATION recital 15 … 205 recital 16 … 217, 219 recital 17 … 213 recital 18 … 208 recital 21 … 205 recital 23 … 195 recital 24 … 190, 195, 217 art 1(a) … 204 art 1(b) … 205, 219 art 2(1) … 199 art 2(1)(a) … 193 art 2(1)(b) … 194 art 2(1)(c) … 194 art 2(1)(f) … 195–6 art 2(2) … 230 art 2(2)(b) … 203–4 art 2(2)(c) … 202 art 2(3) … 204 art 2(4) … 204 art 2(6) … 201 art 3(1) … 200–1, 204 art 3(2)(b) … 210 art 3(3) … 208, 212, 215 art 3(4) … 211 art 3(4)(a) … 222 art 3(5) … 207 art 3(5)(c) … 206 art 4(1) … 217, 223 art 4(1)(a) … 210 art 4(1)(a)-(c) … 214 art 4(1)(b) … 215 art 4(1)(c) … 215 art 4(1)(d) … 214, 222 art 4(1)(e) … 214, 227 art 4(2) … 214, 217–18, 221, 227, 231–2, 234, 237, 852–4 art 4(2)(a) … 226 art 4(2)(b) … 223 art 4(2)(c) … 224 art 4(2)(d) … 231, 235 art 4(2)(f) … 214, 231 art 4(2)(g) … 233, 852 art 4(2)(h) … 236 art 4(4) … 213, 231 art 4(5) … 212 art 5 … 208 art 5(1) … 208 art 5(2) … 208 art 5(3) … 208 art 6(1) … 237 art 6(2) … 238–9

cxxxiv

art 7 … 205 art 7(2)(d) … 195 art 7(3) … 194–5 art 8(2) … 199, 211 art 10 … 105, 189, 195 art 11 … 189 Directive 2004/18 art 6 … 385 art 35(4) … 385 art 41 … 385 EC Treaty (former) … 16, 106, 110, 112 art 10 … 878 art 95 … 115 art 230 … 115 art 314 … 114 Lisbon Treaty, Protocol on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and to the United Kingdom … 105 Maastricht Treaty … 103–4 Declaration No 17 … 19, 104, 106 Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities 1965 … 655 Regulation 1049/2001 … 103–4, 106, 109–21, 359, 678, 855, 879 recital 2 … 111 recital 15 … 114 art 1 … 110–11 art 1(a) … 113 art 2(1) … 112–13 art 2(2) … 113 art 2(3) … 113 art 2(5) … 116 art 2(6) … 110 art 3(a) … 113 art 4 … 111, 879 art 4(1) … 116, 120 art 4(1)-(3) … 117, 879 art 4(1)(a) … 121 art 4(2) … 116, 118, 120 art 4(3) … 118–19 art 4(4) … 120 art 4(5) … 120 art 4(6) … 113, 115 art 4(7) … 116 art 5 … 114, 879 art 6 … 114

art 13(2) … 112 art 14 … 112 art 15 … 112 art 16 … 112 art 17(1) … 112

art 6(1) … 113 art 6(2) … 114 art 7(1) … 114 art 7(3) … 115 art 7(4) … 115 art 8(1) … 115 art 8(2) … 115 art 8(3) … 115 art 9 … 111, 119 art 9(2) … 119 art 9(3) … 119 art 10(1) … 115 art 10(2) … 111 art 10(3) … 115 art 10(4) … 119 art 11(3) … 111 art 12(2) … 111 art 13(1) … 112

Regulation 1367/2006 … 105–6, 110, 184 Treaty of Amsterdam … 16, 103–4 art 207(3) … 107 art 255 … 16, 104–5, 109–10, 663, 851 Treaty on European Union (TEU) art 1 … 111 art 24 … 112 art 34(2) … 112 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), art 15(3) … 110

TABLE OF TREATIES ETC Aarhus Convention … 5, 105, 182, 184–95, 200–1, 203, 207–8, 210–13, 215, 217–18, 221–3, 225, 227–30, 233, 236 preamble … 184 recitals … 237 recital 17 … 229 art 1 … 105, 184 art 2 … 188 art 2(2) … 185, 201, 230, 379, 382 art 2(3) … 191 art 2(3)(a) … 193 art 2(3)(b) … 194–5 art 2(3)(c) … 196 art 2(4) … 185, 201 art 3 … 207 art 3(1) … 194 art 3(3) … 207 art 3(5) … 194 art 3(5)-(6) … 217 art 3(8) … 238 art 3(9) … 201 art 4 … 188 art 4(1) … 186, 200, 211, 222 art 4(2) … 186, 210 art 4(3)-(4) … 186 art 4(3)(a)-(b) … 214 art 4(3)(b) … 212, 215 art 4(3)(c) … 214, 222, 233 art 4(3)(d) … 234

art 4(3)(e) … 227 art 4(4) … 187, 214–15, 217, 221, 227, 234 art 4(4)(a) … 186, 226 art 4(4)(b) … 186, 223, 651 art 4(4)(c) … 186, 224 art 4(4)(d) … 186, 227, 231, 234, 236–7, 853–4 art 4(4)(e) … 186, 236 art 4(4)(f) … 186, 214, 231 art 4(4)(g) … 187, 852 art 4(4)(h) … 187, 236 art 4(5) … 187, 210 art 4(5)-(7) … 212 art 4(6) … 187, 213 art 4(7) … 187, 212 art 4(8) … 186, 208 art 5 … 187 art 5(1)(c) … 219 art 5(3) … 205 art 5(3)(a) … 195 art 5(4) … 194–5 art 5(5) … 194 art 5(6) … 194 art 6 … 187, 189 art 6(1)(c) … 218 art 6(2) … 188 art 6(6) … 188, 220 art 6(7) … 188 art 9 … 188 art 9(1) … 187–9, 218, 238

cxxxv

art 9(2) … 189 art 9(3) … 189 art 9(4) … 218 art 17 … 185 Ann I … 187, 220 Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, National Representatives and International Staff 1951 … 655 American Convention on Human Rights … 82, 95–6 art 13 … 83, 95–6 Articles of Agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 1945 … 655 Articles of Agreement of the International Finance Corporation 1961 … 655 Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund 1945 … 655 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, art 1 … 196 European Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data … 18, 128, 132, 505, 637, 893 art 8 … 132 art 13 … 132, 891 art 14 … 132 European Convention on Human Rights art 1 … 596 art 2 … 84, 94, 101, 771

arts 2-12 … 504, 596 art 3 … 100, 771 art 5 … 84 art 5(4) … 94, 592 art 6 … 93–4, 100, 102, 345, 505, 515, 592, 596–7, 695, 876, 881, 897, 908, 934, 938 art 6(1) … 93–4, 101–2, 515–16 art 6(3)(b) … 345 art 8 … 84–7, 89–90, 94, 97–8, 100–1, 129–30, 221, 435, 596–7, 771, 788, 811, 814, 821, 823–4, 826–7, 829–30, 834–5, 876, 881, 897–8 art 8(1) … 86, 827 art 8(2) … 597, 834 art 9 … 94 art 10 … 83, 88–93, 96, 98–102, 295, 505, 515–18, 596–7, 617, 807, 811, 814–15, 821, 823–4, 826, 834–5, 838, 881, 897–8 art 10(2) … 90, 597, 817, 834 art 11 … 94–5 art 13 … 505, 592, 596, 827 art 14 … 504, 596 First Protocol, arts 1-3 … 504, 596 Sxith Protocol, arts 1-2 … 504, 596 General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe 1949 … 655 Second Protocol … 655 Fourth Protocol … 655 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights … 82, 95 art 17 … 95 art 19(2) … 95 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art 19 … 83

TABLES OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION Australia Primary Legislation Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 27(1) … 431 s 30(1A) … 431 Archives Act 1983 … 52, 543 s 33(1)(a) … 565 Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 … 50 Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth of

cxxxvi

Australia) … 16, 37, 50–9, 127, 357, 365, 367, 430, 478, 507–8, 548, 565–6, 802 p … 752 Pt IV … 51, 53–4 Pt VI … 507 s 3 … 54, 492 s 3A … 52, 479, 482 s 4(1) … 51, 565 s 4(5) … 565 s 5 … 52 s 6A … 52

TABLES OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION s 7 … 50–2 s 7(1) … 565 s 7(1A) … 565 s 7(2A) … 51 s 7(2A)-(2B) … 566 s 7(2B) … 51 s 8 … 57 ss 8-8D … 400 s 8A … 57 s 11 … 51 s 11(2) … 52 s 11A … 51, 53 s 11A(5) … 54 s 11B … 54 s 12(1) … 52, 543 s 12(2) … 365 s 13 … 52 s 14 … 53, 482 s 15(2) … 52 s 15(2)(b) … 413 s 15(3) … 390 s 15(3)–(4) … 52 s 15(4) … 52 s 15(5) … 52 s 15AA … 52 s 15AB … 52 s 15AC … 52 s 16 … 52, 427 s 17 … 51 s 17(2) … 52 s 18(2) … 53 s 20 … 53 s 22(1) … 54, 463, 473 s 24 … 52 s 24A … 52, 428 s 24AA … 52 s 24AA(1)(a) … 439 s 24AB … 52 s 25 … 53 s 26 … 53 s 26(1) … 53, 458 s 26A … 53–5, 431, 668 s 26AA … 55 s 27 … 53–5, 431 s 27A … 53–5, 431 s 29 … 53 s 29(4)-(11) … 53 s 33 … 53–4, 538, 651 ss 33-47A … 53 s 33(1) … 54, 847 s 33(1)(a)(i) … 564

s 33(1)(a)(i)-(ii) … 565 s 33(2) … 507 s 33(2)-(4) … 565 s 33(4) … 507 s 33(a) … 55, 640 s 33A … 53–4, 57, 538 s 33A(2) … 507 s 33A(4) … 507 s 33(b) … 55 s 34 … 54–5, 507 s 34(1) … 755 s 34(2) … 507 s 34(4) … 507 s 35 … 54 s 35(2) … 507 s 35(4) … 507 s 36 … 54, 57, 195 s 36(1) … 57 s 36(3) … 507 s 36A … 507 s 37 … 53, 55, 538, 683, 691 s 37(1) … 54 s 37(1)(a) … 684 s 37(1)(b) … 688 s 37(1)(c) … 765 s 37(2)(b) … 691 s 38 … 56, 871 s 40 … 58 s 42 … 56, 718 s 43 … 53 s 43A … 538 s 45 … 56, 798 s 45A … 56 s 46 … 56, 871 s 46(a) … 880 s 46(c) … 709 s 47 … 838 s 47(1) … 54 s 47(1)(a) … 56 s 47(1)(b) … 58 s 47A … 56 s 47B … 54, 57, 526, 668–9 ss 47B-47J … 53 s 47C … 57, 526, 737, 740 s 47D … 57 s 47E … 54, 58, 526, 538, 704 s 47F … 57, 526 s 47F(2) … 57 s 47G … 54, 58, 526, 538, 844 s 47H … 58, 526, 548, 672 s 47J … 58, 526, 538

cxxxvii

TABLES OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION ss 52-55E … 58 s 53C … 55, 431 s 54A(2) … 55, 431 s 54B … 58 s 54C(3) … 58 s 54K … 59 s 54L … 58 s 54M … 59 s 54M(3)(a) … 431 s 54P … 55, 431 s 54Q … 431 s 54S(2) … 431 ss 54Z-55Q … 59 s 55A(1)(c) … 55, 431 s 55D … 53 s 55D(2) … 431 s 55K(6) … 55 s 55V … 428 s 56(1) … 55 s 57A … 55 s 58(3) … 508 s 58(4) … 508 s 58(5) … 508, 758 s 58(5A) … 508 s 58E … 59 s 59D … 492 s 60AA … 55, 431 s 60AA(2) … 55 s 60AB(2) … 431 s 61 … 492, 916, 924 s 61(1) … 53 s 61(2) … 431 Sch 2 … 50–2 Pt I Div.1 … 565 Div.2 … 565

Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) … 50 Freedom of Information Act 1991 (Tas) … 50 Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) … 50 Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) … 50 Freedom of Information Amendment Act 1983 … 50 Freedom of Information Amendment Act 1991 … 50 Freedom of Information (Amendment) Reform Act 2010 … 431 Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform Act 2010 … 16, 50, 54, 431 Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Act 1986 … 50 Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Act 2009 … 50, 54, 507–8, 741 s 3 … 565 Sch 1 … 565 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) … 50 Migration Act 1958 s 424A … 357 s 503A … 357 Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) … 50 Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) … 50 Secondary Legislation Freedom of Information (Fees and Charges) Regulations 1982 … 53

Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) … 11, 50, 368, 499 Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT) … 50 Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) … 50

Canada Primary Legislation Access to Information Act 1982 … 37, 66–7, 69–70, 72, 127, 431, 478, 507, 740, 839, 843

cxxxviii

s 2 … 16, 70, 494 s 3 … 67, 777 s 4 … 67, 367 s 4(2.1) … 68 s 5 … 68

TABLES OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION s 5(1) … 400 s 7 … 68 s 8 … 68 s 9 … 68 s 10(1) … 69 s 10(2) … 69 s 11 … 68 s 12(1) … 68 ss 13-26 … 67 s 13(1) … 70, 847 s 14 … 73, 538, 669 s 15 … 73, 538, 566, 640, 651 s 15(1) … 564, 566 s 16 … 538, 564, 566 s 16(1)-16(5) … 71 s 16(1)(a) … 72, 686 s 16(1)(b) … 72 s 16(1)(c) … 73, 683, 691, 698–9, 798 s 16(1)(c)(ii) … 688 s 16(2) … 73 s 16(3) … 70 s 17 … 73, 538, 766 s 18 … 538, 672 s 18(1) … 72 s 18(a) … 72 s 18(b) … 73 s 18(c) … 73 s 18(d) … 73 s 19 … 70, 74 s 20 … 431 s 20(1)(a) … 70, 838 s 20(1)(b) … 71 s 20(1)(c) … 71, 538 s 20(1)(d) … 71 s 20(6) … 69, 526, 766 s 21 … 195 s 21(1) … 737, 752 s 21(1)(a) … 72 s 21(1)(b) … 72 s 21(1)(c) … 72 s 21(1)(d) … 72 s 21(2) … 72 s 22 … 73, 704 s 22(1) … 73 s 23 … 72, 718 s 24 … 71 s 24(1) … 876 s 25 … 69, 463, 473 s 26 … 73, 548 s 27 … 431 s 27(1) … 69

s 28 … 431 s 30 … 73 s 31 … 73 s 33 … 431 s 35 … 432 s 37 … 431 s 37(2) … 432 s 41 … 74 s 42 … 74 s 43 … 431–2 s 44 … 74, 431–2 s 46 … 74 s 48 … 70, 492, 494 s 68 … 67, 543 s 68(1) … 68 s 69 … 67 s 69(1) … 70 Sch 1 … 566 Sch I … 67 Sch II … 876 Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1994 (Northwest Territories) … 67 Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1996 (Yukon Territory) … 67 Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information 1982 (Quebec) … 66 Anti-terrorism Act 2001 … 70 Freedom of Information Act 1990 (Newfoundland) … 66 Freedom of Information Act 1998 (Manitoba) … 67 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1988 (Ontario) … 67 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1992 (Saskatchewan) … 67 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1993 (Nova Scotia) … 66 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1994 (Alberta) … 67 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1996 (British Columbia) … 67 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 2001 (Prince Edward Island) … 67

cxxxix

TABLES OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION Privacy Act 1982 … 67 Right to Information Act 1978 (New Brunswick) … 66 Secondary Legislation Access to Information Act Extension Order No 1 (SOR/89–207) … 67

Access to Information Act Heads of Government Institutions Designation Order SI 1983/113 … 68 Access to Information Regulations (SOR/83–507) … 68 reg 4 … 68 reg 7 … 68

New Zealand Primary Legislation Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 … 59–61, 718, 798 s 2(1) … 60 s 6(a) … 64 s 6(b) … 64 s 7(2)(a) … 60 s 7(2)(b) … 65 s 7(2)(c) … 65 s 7(2)(d) … 65 s 7(2)(e) … 65 s 7(2)(f) … 65, 742 s 7(2)(g) … 65 s 7(2)(h) … 65 s 7(2)(i) … 66 s 7(2)(j) … 66 s 8 … 62 s 10(1) … 60 s 10(2) … 61 s 11 … 61 s 12(b)(i) … 62 s 13 … 62 s 13(1A) … 62 s 14(1)(a) … 62 s 15(1)(a)–(f) … 62 s 15(2) … 62 s 16(1) … 63 s 17 … 62 s 17(c)(i) … 63–4 s 17(c)(ii) … 63–4 s 17(d) … 61 s 17(f) … 61 s 17(h) … 61 s 18 … 62 s 21(2) … 61 s 22(2) … 61 s 23(2) … 61–3 s 24(c) … 61

cxl

s 26 … 62 s 26(1)(a) … 64–5 s 26(1)(b) … 64 s 26(1)(c) … 65 s 26(1)(h) … 65 s 27(1) … 66 s 27(1)(c) … 63 s 29(1) … 66 s 31(1) … 66 s 34 … 66 s 35 … 66 s 41(1) … 66 s 44(1) … 63 s 44(2) … 63 Official Information Act 1982 … 37, 59–61, 64, 127, 357, 431, 478, 566, 640, 651, 672, 741, 752, 756 Pt IV … 61 s 2 … 60, 566, 751 s 2(1) … 60 s 2(6) … 60 s 4 … 16 s 5 … 61, 63, 492 s 6 … 538, 566 s 6(a) … 64, 564, 566, 640 s 6(b) … 64, 651, 847 s 6(c) … 64, 683, 691 s 6(d) … 64 s 6(e) … 64, 672, 737 s 7 … 64, 538, 640 s 7(b) … 669 s 9 … 538 s 9(1) … 526 s 9(2)(a) … 60, 64 s 9(2)(b) … 65 s 9(2)(ba) … 65 s 9(2)(ba)(i) … 688 s 9(2)(b)(i) … 838, 844

TABLES OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION s 9(2)(b)(ii) … 798 s 9(2)(c) … 65, 766 s 9(2)(d) … 65 s 9(2)(e) … 65 s 9(2)(f) … 65 s 9(2)(f)(i) … 859 s 9(2)(f)(ii) … 755 s 9(2)(g) … 65, 195, 742 s 9(2)(h) … 65, 718 s 9(2)(i) … 65 s 9(2)(j) … 66 s 9(2)(k) … 66 s 10 … 62 s 12 … 62 s 12(1) … 60, 367 s 12(2) … 61 s 12(3) … 421 s 13 … 61, 390 s 14 … 62, 427 s 15(1) … 62 s 15(2) … 62 s 15A(1)(a) … 62 s 16(1)(a)–(f) … 62 s 16(2) … 62 s 17 … 463, 473 s 17(1) … 63 s 18 … 62 s 18(c)(i) … 63–4, 876 s 18(c)(ii) … 63–4, 709, 880 s 18(d) … 61, 543, 548 s 18(e) … 62 s 18(f) … 61 s 18(g) … 62 s 18(h) … 61 s 19 … 62 s 20 … 61, 400 s 21 … 61, 400 s 22(3) … 61–2 s 22(4) … 63 s 23 … 61 s 23(3) … 61–2 s 24 … 566 ss 24-27 … 61 s 24(1) … 61 s 24(3) … 61–3 s 25(c) … 61 s 27(1) … 62 s 27(1)(a) … 64–5, 566, 640, 651, 672, 683, 691, 737, 838, 844, 847 s 27(1)(b) … 64 s 27(1)(c) … 65, 798

s 27(1)(h) … 65, 718 s 28(1) … 66 s 28(1)(c) … 63 s 28(4) … 62 s 30(1) … 66 s 30(3) … 431 s 31 … 63, 507, 564, 566 s 32(1) … 66 s 32B … 66 s 32C … 66 s 44(2)(b) … 64 s 48 … 63 s 48(1) … 66 s 52(1) … 63–4, 709, 880 s 52(3) … 63 s 52(3)(b) … 64 s 52(3)(b)(i) … 876 Sch 1 … 566 Ombudsmen Act 1975 … 66 s 18(3) … 431 Sch 1, Pt I … 60 Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act 1962 … 59 Privacy Act 1993 … 59–63, 127, 431, 640, 651, 718 s 2(1) … 61 s 6 … 61 s 6(1) … 61 s 6(1)(b) … 61 s 7 … 63 s 7(2)–(3) … 64 s 11(i) … 61 s 21(3) … 63 s 27(1)(a) … 64 s 27(1)(b) … 64, 651 s 27(1)(c) … 64 s 27(1)(d) … 64 s 27(2)(a)–(c) … 64 s 28(1)(a)–(b) … 65 s 29(1)(a) … 64 s 29(1)(b) … 65, 798 s 29(1)(c) … 65 s 29(1)(f) … 65 s 29(1)(i) … 63–4 s 29(1)(j) … 61 s 29(2)(a) … 61 s 30 … 62 s 32 … 62 s 33 … 61

cxli

TABLES OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION s 43(1) … 63 s 45(c) … 61 s 59 … 62 s 66(2)(a)(iii) … 63 s 115(1) … 66

s 34 … 61 s 35 … 62 s 36 … 62 s 38 … 61 s 39 … 62 s 40(1)(a) … 62 s 42(2) … 62

Republic of Ireland Primary Legislation Freedom of Information Act 1997 … 16, 37, 74–6, 80, 127, 367, 432, 478, 507, 548, 567, 683, 691, 742, 798 s 1(2) … 74 s 2 … 567 s 2(1) … 75 s 2(5)(a) … 75 s 6(1) … 75 s 6(2) … 390 s 6(4) … 365 s 6(5)(a) … 76 s 6(5)(b) … 76 s 6(8) … 77 s 6(9) … 75 s 7 … 567 s 7(1) … 76 s 7(3) … 77, 427 s 7(4) … 77 s 7(6) … 77 s 7(7) … 76, 390 s 8(1) … 77 s 8(2) … 77 s 8(4) … 76 s 9(1) … 77 s 10(1) … 76 s 10(1)(a) … 428 s 10(1)(f) … 76 s 10(2) … 76, 390, 458 s 12(1) … 77 s 12(2) … 77 s 13 … 463, 473 s 13(1) … 77 s 14(1) … 80 s 14(4) … 80 s 15 … 76, 400 s 16 … 76, 400 s 17 … 76 s 19 … 432 s 19(1) … 78, 752, 756

cxlii

s 19(2) … 78 s 19(5) … 78 s 20 … 195 s 20(1) … 79, 526, 737, 742 s 20(1A) … 78 s 20(2) … 79 s 20(3) … 77, 742 s 21(1) … 77, 79 s 21(2) … 77, 526 s 22(1) … 78, 718 s 22(1A) … 79 s 22(1)(b) … 880 s 22(1)(c) … 709 s 22(2) … 79 s 22(3) … 526 s 23 … 508 s 23(1) … 77, 80 s 23(1)(a) … 684 s 23(1)(aa) … 766 s 23(1)(a)(i) … 688 s 23(1)(b) … 688 s 23(2) … 80 s 23(3) … 526 s 23(3)(b) … 77 s 24 … 508, 567 s 24(1) … 77, 80, 564, 567, 640, 672 s 24(1)–(2) … 567 s 24(1)(c) … 651 s 24(2) … 79, 847 s 24(3) … 79–80, 567, 640 s 25 … 78, 80, 508, 567, 640 s 25(10) … 508 s 25(11) … 508 s 25(13) … 508 s 25(1)(a) … 508 s 25(3) … 508 s 25(3)(b) … 508 s 25(6)(b) … 508 s 25(7) … 78 s 25(8) … 78

TABLES OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION s 34(15) … 432 s 35 … 80 s 36(1) … 76 s 37 … 80–1 s 40(1)(b) … 508 s 41 … 77, 80 s 42(1) … 80 s 42(2) … 78, 81, 508, 567 s 45 … 81 s 46(1) … 704, 751 s 46(1)(a) … 75 s 46(1)(b) … 75 s 46(1)(c)–(e) … 75 s 46(1)(d) … 859 s 46(1)(f) … 75 s 46(2) … 76, 543 s 46(3) … 76 s 47 … 76 s 47(5) … 76 s 47(6) … 76 s 47(7) … 76 Sch 1 … 567

s 25(9) … 508 s 26 … 432 s 26(1) … 79 s 26(1)(a) … 77 s 26(3) … 77, 526 s 26(4) … 79 s 27 … 432 s 27(1) … 79, 838 s 27(1)(b) … 77 s 27(1)(b)–(c) … 77 s 27(3) … 77, 526 s 27(4) … 79 s 28 … 432 s 28(1) … 79 s 28(3) … 80, 766 s 28(5) … 77 s 28(5)(a) … 526 s 28(5A) … 79 s 29 … 78, 432 s 29(3) … 432 s 30 … 80 s 30(1)(a) … 77, 548 s 30(1)(b) … 77 s 30(3) … 526 s 31 … 80 s 31(1) … 77 s 31(2)(n) … 77 s 31(3) … 77, 526 s 32 … 79 s 32(1) … 876 s 32(1)(b) … 876 s 34 … 80 s 34(1) … 432 s 34(12) … 80, 492 s 34(12)(b) … 78, 500

Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 … 75 s 13(2) … 77 s 19 … 567 s 19(5) … 77 s 22(2) … 77 s 23(2) … 77 s 24(3) … 77 s 26(4) … 77 s 27(4) … 77 s 28(5A) … 77

United States of America Administrative Procedures Act 5 USC 701–706 … 50

Bretton Woods Agreements Act 1945 … 655

600 … 430 958 … 564, 847 1.8(e) … 539 3.2(b) … 526 3.6(a) … 633 6.1(cc) … 626

Building Act 1984, s 56 … 544

Executive Order 13,526 … 43–4, 564–5, 595, 625

Electronic Freedom of Information Act 1996 … 38, 205

Federal Advisory Committee Act 2000 5 USC App … 564

Executive Order 12 356 … 564

Freedom of Information Act 1966 5 USC 552 … 37–40, 44–8, 206, 400, 430, 526, 543,

Administrative Procedures Act 5 USC 1002 … 38, 430

cxliii

TABLES OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION 548, 564–5, 623, 625, 639, 650, 672, 688, 739, 765 (a)(1) … 41 (a)(2) … 40–1, 400 (a)(2)(D) … 41 (a)(3)(A) … 40–1 (a)(3)(B) … 42 (a)(3)(E) … 40, 564–5 (a)(4)(A) … 42 (a)(4)(A)(i) … 526 (a)(4)(A)(ii) … 42 (a)(4)(A)(ii)(II) … 42 (a)(4)(A)(iv) … 42 (a)(4)(B) … 49 (a)(6)(A) … 49 (a)(6)(A)(i) … 42–3, 49 (a)(6)(B)(iii) … 42 (a)(6)(C)(i) … 42–3 (a)(6)(F) … 42 (b) … 43 (b)(1) … 43, 564, 623, 639 (b)(2) … 45 (b)(3) … 45 (b)(3)(B) … 876 (b)(4) … 45, 798, 838 (b)(5) … 46, 718, 737, 752 (b)(6) … 47 (b)(7) … 683, 765

cxliv

(b)(7)(D) … 564 (b)(7)(E) … 691 (b)(8) … 48 (b)(9) … 48 (c) … 40 Freedom of Information Reform Act 1986 … 38, 40, 47 Government in the Sunshine Act 2000 USC 552b … 564 Intelligence Authorization Act 2002 … 38 International Organisations Act 1968, s 1 … 654 International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act 1950 … 654 International Sugar Organisation Act 1973 … 655 National Security Act 1957 50 USC 401,(a)(4) … 565 OPEN Government Act 2007 … 38 Privacy Act 1974 5 USC 552a … 38, 127, 564 (d)(1) … 38 s 42(1) … 62 Trade Secrets Act … 430

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS Table of Abbreviations CPR DCA DEFRA DPA DP (Fees) Regs

Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Department of Constitutional Affairs Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Data Protection Act 1998 Data Protection (Subject Access) (Fees and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2000 EIR Environmental Information Regulations 2004 EI(S)R Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 FOIA Freedom of Information Act 2000 FOI (Time) Regs Freedom of Information (Time for Compliance with Request) Regulations 2004 FOI(S)A Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 FOI & DP (Limit & Fees) Regs Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 FTT Rules Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 HC House of Commons HL House of Lords IC Information Commissioner IT Information Tribunal IT(EA)Rules Information Tribunal (Enforcement Appeals) Rules 2005 IT (NSA) Rules Information Tribunal (National Security Appeals) Rules 2005 MoJ Ministry of Justice UT Rules Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 s.45 Code of Practice Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs’ Code of Practice On the Discharge of Public Authorities’ Functions under Part I of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to section 45(5) of the FOIA, 25 November 2004. s.46 Code of Practice Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the Management of Records issued under section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor pursuant to section 46(6) of the FOIA, 16 July 2009.

cxlv

WEB SOURCES UK material UK cases and legislation:

Primary material

www.bailii.org/

UK Information Commissioner: www.ico.gov.uk/

Scottish Information Commissioner:

www.itspublicknowledge.info/

UK Information Tribunal:

www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/

MoJ, FOI home page (includes guidance):

www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/freedom-of-information.htm

DEFRA, EIR home page:

www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/opengov/eir/index.htm

DEFRA, Code of Practice issued under EIR reg 16(1):

www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/opengov/eir/cop.htm

DEFRA, Guidance on EIR:

www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/opengov/eir/guidance/full-guidance/index.htm

UK National Archives:

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

UK National Archives, policy on retention:

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ policy/ default.htm

UK National Archives, Departmental Management of Records Statement: www.pro.gov.uk/about/access/system

Non-UK material Australian cases and legislation: www.austlii.edu.au/

Canadian cases and legislation: www.canlii.org/

Irish cases and legislation: www.bailii.org/

New Zealand cases and legislation: www.nzlii.org/

US cases and legislation:

www.law.cornell.edu/

US Court of Appeals for the 1st circuit: www.ca1.uscourts.gov/ Substitute ca2 for 2nd circuit

etc. Substitute cadc for the District of Columbia circuit US, Executive Order 12,958 (as amended, 25 March 2003):

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325–11.html

European material European Court of Human Rights:

cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/

European Court:

curia.europa.eu/en/

cxlvi

WEB SOURCES International material Aarhus Convention:

www.unece.org/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf

UN Convention of Biological Diversity, concluded at Rio de Janiero, 5 June 1992: www.biodiv.org/doc/legal/cbd-un-en.pdf

UN Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, concluded at Paris, 16 November 1972: www.whc.unesco.org/world_he.htm

Secondary material

UK material Cabinet Office, Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, 2nd edn (1997): www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/caboff/foi/foi.htm

Cabinet Office, Your Right to Know. The Government's Proposals for a Freedom of Information Act. White Paper (Cm 3818, 1997): www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/caboff/foi/foi.htm

House of Commons, Public Administration—Third Report (Cm 4355, 1999):

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmpubadm/570/57002.htm

Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs’ Code of Practice On the Discharge of Public Authorities’ Functions under Part I of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (25 November 2004): www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-guidance-codes-practice.htm

Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the Management of Records under section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (16 July 2009). Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor pursuant to section 46(6) of the FOIA: www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-guidance-codes-practice.htm

DCA, Review of Statutory Prohibitions on Disclosure: www.dca.gov.uk/statbarsrep2005sm1.pdf)

National Archives, Guidance on the FOI Act:

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/policy/foi

Information Commissioner, Guidance on the FOI Act: www.ico.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=33

Scottish Information Commissioner, Guidance on the FOI(S) Act

www.itspublicknowledge.info/legislation/briefings/briefings.htm

Non-UK material Australian Law Reform Commission and Administrative Review Council, Open Government: A Review of the Federal Freedom of Information Act 1982, ALRC 77, ARC 40 (Canberra, 1995): www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/77/

European material The European Data Protection Supervisor, ‘Public Access to Information and Data Protection’, Background Paper Series, July 2005, No 1: www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/lang/en/pid/21Background

International material Economic Commission for Europe, The Aarhus Convention. An Implementation Guide (New York, United Nations, 2000): www.unece.org/env/pp/acig.pdf

cxlvii

CHAPTER 1

Eliciting Official Information Chapter 1 – Eliciting Official Information

Page 1. OVERVIEW OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACCESS LEGISLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1– 001 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1– 002 The Freedom of Information Act 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1– 003 Earlier official information access legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1– 004 Relationship between the FOI Act, the Data Protection Act and the Environmental Information Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. TERMINOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1– 005 The basic rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1– 006 Exemptions and exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1– 007 Absolute exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1– 008 Procedural terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1– 009 Review, etc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1– 010 Miscellaneous terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. THE RATIONALE FOR OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACCESS LEGISLATION . . . . . . . . . . 10 1– 011 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1– 012 The mischief at which the FOI Acts is aimed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1– 013 The background to the introduction of the legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1– 014 The purpose of the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1– 015 The purpose of the exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1– 016 The purpose of freedom of information legislation: comparative jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1– 017 The long title and the absence of a purpose clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. BACKGROUND TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1– 018 Access to official information in the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1– 019 Attempts at a comprehensive right of access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1– 020 The Data Protection Act 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. THE OPEN GOVERNMENT CODE OF PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1– 021 The Code of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1– 022 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1– 023 The Code’s five main commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1– 024 The purpose and aims of the Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1– 025 Protection of privacy and confidentiality under the Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1– 026 Information released under the Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1– 027 Bodies specifically exempted from the Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1– 028 Information excluded by Part II of the Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1– 029 Procedure for obtaining information covered by the Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1– 030 Enforcement of the Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION 1– 031 Relationship between the Code and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 . . 23 1– 032 The Data Protection Act 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6. ENACTMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1– 033 Parliamentary history of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1– 034 The consultation paper and draft Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1– 035 The Freedom of Information Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1– 036 Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7. SCOTLAND, WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1– 037 Scotland: the demarcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1– 038 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1– 039 Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1– 040 Implementation of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 . . . . . . . . 28 1– 041 Differences between the two Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 1– 042 Environmental information: Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1– 043 Subject-access requests: Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 1– 044 Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 1– 045 Northern Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8. DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1 JANUARY 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 1– 046 Legislative developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 1– 047 Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 1– 048 Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 1– 049 Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1.

OVERVIEW OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACCESS LEGISLATION

1– 001 Introduction The four decades leading to 2000 saw within the United Kingdom a gradual increase in the rights of an individual to elicit information from public authorities. The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 marked the first step in that process.1 The Act had been introduced into Parliament as a private Member’s Bill. The Member sponsoring the Bill spoke of a ‘right to know’2 and set out the purpose of that right: 1

The Act applies to local authorities, education committees, parish meetings of rural parishes, various NHS boards, bodies and executive councils, as well as their committees. It makes the meetings of all such bodies open to the public, except where publicity ‘would be contrary to the public interest’. Section 1(4)(b) provides that where the meeting is required to be open to the public, a newspaper can request, and on payment of postage must be supplied with, the agenda of the meeting ‘…together with such further statements or particulars, if any, as are necessary to indicate the nature of the items included or, if thought fit in the case of any item, with copies of any reports or other documents supplied to members of the body in connection with the item’. The Act is considered further at §§8– 002 to 8– 003.

2

In a speech by Lord Falconer (Constitutional Affairs Secretary and Lord Chancellor) to the International Conference of Information Commissioners, Manchester, 22 May 2006, he stated: ‘Freedom of Information demands extra of our public officials, it requires cultural change within Governments and among public officials – a shift in mindset from the “need to know” to the “right to know”.’

2

OVERVIEW OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACCESS LEGISLATION The public has the right…to know what its elected representatives are doing…. Unless the Press, which is to report to the public, has some idea from the documents before it what is to be discussed, the business of allowing the Press in becomes wholly abortive…The Press must have some idea from the documents what is the true subject to be discussed at a meeting to which its representatives are entitled to be admitted…I hope that hon. Members will think fit to give this Bill a Second Reading, and to consider that the paramount function of this distinguished House is to safeguard civil liberties rather than to think that administrative convenience should take first place in law.3

The novelty of the Act lay in the conferral of a right to obtain access to official documents.4 Although the scope of the right was narrow, to some its mere existence made the Act ‘a very controversial piece of legislation’.5 Its potential for extension, in particular to the ministries of central government, was immediately recognised.6 Indeed, apart from the right of access to documents, there was little in the Act that was new: As the Hon Member for Islington North said, unless the spirit of the Bill is observed, it will do little more than the existing legislation. It will, however, do one thing more, and that is the most important feature to have come out of the Bill. It is not so much the admission of the public, curiously enough, but the provisions relating to the distribution of documents, that may well turn out to be the most important part of the Bill.7

The rationale for this early legislation and its identification of the competing considerations for and against disclosure of official information were to anticipate the preoccupations of Parliament 40 years later. 1– 002 The Freedom of Information Act 2000 The enactment of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 represented a significant step in the process that had begun with the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. For the first time in the United Kingdom, Parliament conferred an entitlement to official information that was not confined either by its permissible subject matter or by reference to the persons who enjoy that entitlement. Its starting point is an entitlement, described without reference to a subject-matter, conferred upon every person to have disclosed all information answering the terms of a request held by the requested public authority. Up until the Freedom of Information Act 2000, every right to elicit official information had been limited. The limitation had been generally referable to information answering a particular description or emanating from a 3

Hansard HC vol 616 cols 1350–1358 (5 February 1960) (Margaret Thatcher, Finchley, Second Reading Speech. This was her maiden speech).

4

The provision of a right for the press to attend meetings of local authorities had been introduced by The Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act 1908, passed in consequence of the judgment in Tenby Corp v Mason [1908] 1 Ch 457. Section 3 of the 1908 Act provided that it was not to extend to any meeting of a committee of a local authority, other than education committees. The efficacy of the Act was reduced by the Local Government Act 1933 s 85, which empowered local authorities to appoint any committees they chose. As a result of this, many authorities went into committee of the full council in order to be able to exclude the press. Its efficacy was further reduced by the Education Act 1944, which removed education committees from the operation of the Act.

5

Hansard HC vol 616 col 1366 (5 February 1960) (Mr GW Reynolds, Islington North).

6

‘How Parliament would get on in those circumstances I really dread to think.’ — Hansard HC vol 616 col 1384 (5 February 1960) (Mr Arthur Skeffington, member for Hayes and Harlington, quoting from the Official Report of the Standing Committee D on the Local Government Bill in 1958).

7

Hansard HC vol 617 col 830 (13 May 1960) (Mr Peter Kirk, Gravesend).

3

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION particular source. But it had also been limited by reference to the persons on whom the right was conferred. In some cases, it was limited in both such respects. The entitlement conferred by the 2000 Act has no such limitation: it is given to every person, irrespective of that person’s interest in the information; and it applies to all information, irrespective of its subject-matter. The entitlement is, however, shaped by a series of specific exemptions.8 To the extent that the requested information does not fall within one or more of those exemptions, it must be disclosed. There are two types of exemption. If information falls within the terms of a provision conferring ‘absolute exemption’ the entitlement is thereby disapplied.9 If information falls within the terms of a provision conferring exemption, but not ‘absolute exemption’, then only if the public interest in maintaining that exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the information will the entitlement to disclosure be disapplied. The breadth of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives it greater significance than the earlier legislation conferring subject-specific rights of access. 1– 003 Earlier official information access legislation Although the earlier patchwork of rights initiated by one paragraph in the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 has been eclipsed by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, it remains largely intact.10 From the perspective of an individual seeking to elicit official information, the paramount concern will be the existence of a right to obtain that information, rather than the statutory provenance of that right. From the perspective of a public authority responding to a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the existence of an alternative statutory right of access to the information will result in the displacement of the entitlement to that information under the 2000 Act.11 The earlier legislation thus remains significant. In this work, subject-specific rights of access have been considered thematically in Chapters 5, 6 and 8. 1– 004 Relationship between the FOI Act, the Data Protection Act and the Environmental Information Regulations On the same day that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 came fully into force (1 January 2005), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 also came into force. The Regulations impose a duty to make available on request ‘environmental information’ held by public authorities. The Freedom of Information Act 2000, whilst unrestricted in its breadth, expressly acknowledges the proscriptions and the disclosure regimes of both the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Regulations. Both of these implement European Directives that had to be 8

See FOIA s 1(2); FOI(S)A s 1(6). These make the entitlements or entitlement, respectively, subject to (most importantly) s 2, thereby bringing in the provisions of Pt II of the Act.

9

The verb ‘disapply’ in relation to the entitlements is used throughout this work to signify that one or both of the entitlements do not apply. It is recognised that the creation of express relationships between ss1(1), 1(2), 2 and Pt II of the FOIA is simply a legislative technique for delineating the bounds of those entitlements. In other words, these provisions shape the scope of the entitlements, rather than remove or negate a entitlement already given. For a similar technique used elsewhere, see Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] 1 AC 1163, esp at [20], in relation to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.

10

Some rights have been repealed by the DPA, namely: the Access to Personal Files Act 1987; parts of the Access to Health Records Act 1990.

11

FOIA s 21; FOI(S)A s 25.

4

TERMINOLOGY accommodated by the draftsman of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This requirement was secured by routeing the treatment of requested information through the 1998 Act or the Regulations according to whether that information related to the applicant or was ‘environmental information’ (respectively). So far as personal information is concerned, an applicant’s right of access to information of which he is the data subject is governed by s 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. Where an applicant seeks personal information of which he is not the data subject, then the applicant’s right of access is governed by the Freedom of Information Act. In this case, however, disclosure under the Act will constitute a processing of personal data, which is a matter governed by the Data Protection Act 1998. The legislative regime reconciles the competing interests of the applicant and the subject of the personal information by importing into the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the protection given by certain of the data protection principles. Disclosure of personal information is considered in detail in Chapter 5 (personal information the only subject of which is the applicant) and Chapter 24 (personal information the subject of which is or includes someone other than the applicant). Where a request is for, or includes, environmental information, the request (or that part of the request) is governed by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. This routeing is necessary in order to implement the more generous disclosure regime applicable to environmental information under European Parliament’s Directive 2003/4/EC. Disclosure of environmental information is considered in Chapter 6.

2.

TERMINOLOGY

1– 005 The basic rights It is convenient at this point to set out the principal terms that will be used in this work. (1) When this work refers to the ‘FOI Acts’, it generally means both the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Footnotes identify the different section numbers, as well as differences between the two Acts. Where those differences are more substantive than can properly be set out in a footnote, they are treated separately in the main text. (2) When this work refers to the ‘DPA’, it means the Data Protection Act 1998. The DPA applies equally to Scotland. (3) The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 apply to public authorities and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 apply to Scottish public authorities. Footnotes identify the different regulation numbers as well as differences between the two regimes. Footnotes also indicate the provenance of the regulations, both from Directive 2003/4/EC and the Aarhus Convention from which it was derived. (4) The FOI Acts confer on every person two distinct but interrelated entitlements: (a) First, an entitlement to be informed in writing by a public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in a request.12 The FOI Acts label the duty of a public authority to comply with this 12

FOIA s 1(1)(a). This does not exist as a discrete entitlement under the FOI(S)A.

5

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION entitlement as the duty to confirm or deny.13 In shorthand, this may be called the divulgence duty. From the perspective of the person who made the request for the information, this may be called the existence right. (b) Secondly, but more importantly, if the public authority does hold information of the description specified in a request, an entitlement to have that information communicated to him.14 The FOI Acts15 refer to this at various points as disclosure. In this work, this duty has been variously called the disclosure duty or the duty to communicate. From the perspective of the person requesting the information, this may be called the access right. Although the FOI Acts locate this right after the existence right, it is better considered first: the existence right is academic if a decision has been made to disclose the information.16 (5) The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 confer a similar access right, but confined to ‘environmental information’. There are significant differences in the breadth of the rights conferred by the FOI Acts and the right conferred by the Regulations. Generally, but not always, the Regulations provide a more liberal disclosure regime than the FOI Acts. (6) The DPA confers on every person a right to be informed whether personal data of which the applicant is the data subject is being held and a right to have communicated to him those data.17 The DPA speaks of data rather than of ‘information’, but the definition of ‘data’ makes it clear that data are simply information that has certain routine characteristics.18 ‘Personal data’ means data that relate to a living individual who can be identified from the data, including any expressions of opinion about the individual.19 1– 006 Exemptions and exceptions Part II of the FOI Acts and Part IV of the DPA enumerate a series of provisions, which in this work are called exemptions.20 Part 3 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 employ the term exceptions rather than exemptions. Nothing turns on the different terminology. Each of the provisions of Part II

13

FOIA s 1(6).

14

FOIA s 1(1)(b); FOI(S)A s 1(1).

15

FOIA ss 9(5), 13(3), 17(4), 22, 23(5), 26(1), 27(1) and (4), 28(1), 29(1), 33(2), 35(4), 36(2) and (7), 38(1), 40(3), 41(1), 42(2), 43(1), 44(1), 45(2), 53(7), 77(1), and 81(2); FOI(S)A ss 9(7), 13(4), 16(2), 26, 27, 28, 29(3), 30, 31(4), 32(1), 33(1) and (2), 35(1), 36(2), 38(2), 39(1), 40, 45, 50(7), 52(3), 60(2), 62(4), 64(1), 65(1).

16 17

As is implicitly recognised by the FOIA s 1(5). DPA s 7(1)(a) and (c).

18

DPA s 1(1).

19

DPA s 1(1).

20

It is only the DPA that expressly refers to them as being ‘exemptions’.

6

TERMINOLOGY of the FOI Acts, in describing one or more types of information, renders it exempt information.21 This designation is significant for the disclosure duty: the designation is a requirement for disapplication of that duty and, in relation to some of the provisions, is sufficient for disapplication of that duty. In relation to the duty to confirm or deny, each of the provisions in Part II (with two exceptions),22 after describing a type of exempt information, is followed by a closely corresponding provision preventing that duty from arising. The FOI Acts sometimes speak of the latter as an exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny,23 and that term is used in this work. 1– 007 Absolute exemptions Some provisions in Part II of the FOI Acts confer what that Act calls absolute exemption.24 The remaining provisions25 in Part II of the FOI Acts confer what this work terms qualified exemption. The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 do not employ these terms, although the exceptions may be similarly divided. Where information falls within the terms of a provision that confers absolute exemption, the disclosure right does not apply and the public authority is thereby relieved from the duty to communicate. Similarly, where confirmation or denial of a holding would fall within one of the provisions in Part II under which the duty to confirm or deny is said not to arise and that provision confers absolute exemption, the right does not apply and the public authority is thereby relieved from the duty to confirm or deny. The Act speaks of an ‘exclusion’ of the duty to confirm or deny and of an ‘exemption’ from the duty to communicate.26 Those duties may be said to be disapplied.27 For information that falls within the terms of a provision that confers qualified exemption, the public authority may or may not be relieved from the duty to confirm or deny and from the duty to communicate depending upon a consideration of the public interest.28 1– 008 Procedural terms The person who seeks the information under the FOI Acts or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 is called the applicant.29 The person who seeks the information under the DPA is called the recipient.30 Under both Acts and the Regulations, information is sought by a request.31 A request under the FOI Acts and the Regulations is addressed to a public authority, which may be a government department, one of the Houses of Parliament, any emanation of local 21

A term recognised throughout the FOI Acts: see FOIA s 84; FOI(S)A s 73. There are some specific sections in Pt II that are simply supportive of other provisions in that Part, eg FOIA s 25.

22

FOIA ss 21 and 43(1).

23

FOIA ss 2(1)(a), 15(2)(a) and 17(3)(a).

24

FOIA s 2(3); FOI(S)A s 2(2). These provisions are listed at §14– 016.

25

Excluding the provisions that are purely supportive, such as s 25. The remaining provisions are listed at §14– 017.

26

FOIA s 2(1), (2)(b).

27

FOIA s 2(1) and (2); FOI(S)A s 2(1). See n 9.

28

See §§15– 010 to 15– 019.

29

FOIA s 84; FOI(S)A s 1(2); EIR reg 2(1); EI(S)R reg 2(1).

30

DPA s 70(1).

31

In the FOIA, called a ‘request for information’: ss 8 and 84. In Scotland, see FOI(S)A s 8. DPA s 7(2).

7

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION government or the National Health Service, any number of specifically named public bodies or officers, or a publicly owned company.32 A request under the DPA is addressed to a data controller, which includes each government department as if it were a separate individual.33 Under both Acts and the Regulations, once the public authority receives a valid request, it may give the applicant a fees notice, in which it sets out the amount it will charge the applicant for complying with the request.34 Where a public authority decides that some or all of the information sought should not be disclosed to the applicant, it must give the applicant notice of this, which this work calls a refusal notice. A public authority may decide to mask parts of a document disclosed to an applicant on the basis that it is not obliged to disclose those blanked out parts of the document. That blanking out process is called redaction and the document is said to be redacted.35 1– 009 Review, etc The FOI Acts provide for two codes of practice. The section 45 Code of Practice is issued by the Secretary of State and provides guidance on the handling of requests for information.36 The section 46 Code of Practice is issued by the Lord Chancellor and relates to the keeping, management and destruction of records.37 The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 provide for one code of practice, similar to that issued under s 45.38 An applicant who is dissatisfied with the way in which a public authority has dealt with his request under the FOI Acts may complain to that authority and seek internal review under the section 45 Code of Practice. If the applicant remains dissatisfied with the response, he may pursue what in this work is called a 2nd stage appeal by making an application to the Information Commissioner.39 At this point the applicant becomes a complainant.40 If the Information Commissioner needs more information in order to determine an application, he may serve on the public authority an information notice.41 If the Information Commissioner decides that the public authority has not complied with its disclosure duty or the duty to confirm or deny, he must serve a decision notice on the public authority and on the complainant.42 If the Information Commissioner decides that the public 32

Public authorities are considered in detail at §§9– 018 to 9– 033. The definition is wider in the case of the EIR: see §6– 015.

33

DPA s 63. The DPA also applies to non-governmental persons, but this is outside the scope of this work.

34

FOIA s 9(1): FOI(S)A s 9(1); DPA s 7(2)(b) and DP (Fees) Regs.

35

Although not strictly a correct use of the word, this is the meaning it has come to assume in this and related areas of the law.

36

FOIA s 45; FOI(S)A s 60. The Code is reproduced in the Appendix to this work.

37

FOIA s 46; FOI(S)A s 61. The Code is reproduced in the Appendix to this work.

38

EIR reg 18; EI(S)R reg 16.

39

Similarly, under the EIR reg 18(1), EI(S)R reg 17. The Information Commissioner is simply a new name for the Data Protection Commissioner: FOIA s 18(1). In Scotland, the application is made to the Scottish Information Commissioner, who is referred to in the FOI(S)A s 73 as ‘the Commissioner’. Appeals under the DPA are provided for by s 7(9), with jurisdiction vested in the High Court or a county court: s 15.

40

FOIA s 50(1); EIR reg 18(1); EI(S)R reg 17.

41

FOIA s 50(1); FOI(S)A s 50(1); EIR reg 18; EI(S)R reg 17.

42

FOIA s 50(3)–(4); EIR reg 18. In Scotland the function of decision notices is absorbed within enforcement notices: FOI(S)A s 51; EI(S)R reg 17.

8

TERMINOLOGY authority has not otherwise properly complied with its duties in relation to a request, he may serve an enforcement notice on the public authority and on the complainant.43 Either the complainant or the public authority may appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision to the Tribunal.44 In this work, such an appeal is called a 3rd stage appeal. In most cases, the tribunal will be the First-tier Tribunal, but in more significant cases it may go directly to the Upper Tribunal. The tribunal re-determines the issues based on its own evaluation of the evidence (including the requested information) before it. If a party is not satisfied with the decision of the tribunal, that party needs permission to have the tribunal’s decision reviewed, either by the Upper Tribunal or, if the third-stage appeal was heard by the Upper Tribunal, by the Court of Appeal. 1– 010 Miscellaneous terms The FOI Acts, the DPA and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 enable a conclusive certificate to be issued in certain circumstances by a Minister of the Crown or like official.45 There are two types of conclusive certificate. An exemption conclusive certificate certifies either that a particular exemption or that a particular harm required for exemption is applicable, and the certificate stands as conclusive evidence of that ‘fact’, irrespective of what the reality might be.46 A compliance conclusive certificate certifies that the person signing it has on reasonable grounds formed the opinion that the public authority has not failed to comply with the duty to disclose or the duty to confirm or deny,47 irrespective of what the reality might be. The effect of both types of certificate is to remove altogether or cut down substantially an applicant’s rights of appeal, either by express provision48 or because of the deeming effect of the certificate. Although the FOI Acts, the DPA and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 may excuse a public authority from disclosing certain information, the public authority may nevertheless decide to voluntarily disclose that information. In this work such disclosure is called discretionary disclosure. Legislation providing for access to official information exists in many other jurisdictions. In this work, where it has been thought enlightening, reference has been made to the jurisprudence of those jurisdictions whose legal systems and official information access legislation bear the closest resemblance to that of the United Kingdom: the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the Republic of Ireland. In this work, these are called the comparative jurisdictions.

43

FOIA s 52; EIR reg 18. In Scotland, an enforcement notice is employed wherever the Information Commissioner decides that the public authority has not properly complied with its duties in relation to a request: FOI(S)A s 51; EI(S)R reg 17.

44

FOIA s 57(1); EIR reg 18. There is no such right of appeal in Scotland.

45

FOIA ss 23(2), 24(3)–(4), 25, 34(3), 36(7), 53(2)–(3) and (6); FOI(S)A ss 31(2)–(3) and 52(2); DPA s 28(2)–(3); EIR reg 15; EI(S)R reg 12.

46

FOIA ss 23(2), 24(3)–(4), 25, 34(3) and 36(7); FOI(S)A s 31(2)–(3); DPA s 28(2)–(3); EIR reg 15; EI(S)R reg 12.

47

FOIA s 53(2)–(3) and (6); FOI(S)A s 52(2); EIR reg 18(6); EI(S)R reg 17.

48

FOIA s 60; EIR reg 18(1) and 18(7).

9

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION

3.

THE RATIONALE FOR OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACCESS LEGISLATION

1– 011 Introduction The Freedom of Information Act 2000 confers a right to secure the disclosure of certain information and imposes a correlative duty to disclose it. The short title of each of the FOI Acts tends to mask its compulsive character. The benefits typically attributed to the dissemination of official information, namely:49 — increased information in relation to the making of official decisions; and — an electorate informed as to what its Government is or has been doing, do not, in theory, require compulsion for their efficacy. The Act is not one that merely enables a public authority to do what otherwise it could not lawfully do for lack of statutory authority. Other than in limited circumstances,50 it is and always has been perfectly open for a public authority to volunteer any information that it holds to anyone who requests it.51 Such voluntary disclosure would, moreover, have been consistent with the spirit and letter of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.52 A public authority owes its life to the public: unlike a private company or an individual, it has no interests that do not ultimately derive from that public. The compulsion that is at the heart of the FOI Acts recognises that a public authority to which a request for information has been made may be disinclined to disclose it. There is no deference in the Act to that disinclination. Disapplication of the duties under the Act only results where one or more of the statutory exemptions apply and, in some cases, the balance of specific facets of the public interest requires it. 1– 012 The mischief at which the FOI Acts is aimed It is conventional to speak of Parliament intending that an enactment remedy a particular

49

‘This principle allows the public and the media to exercise scrutiny of the State, the municipalities and other parts of the public sector which, in turn, contributes to the free exchange of opinions and ideas and to efficient and correct management of public affairs and, thereby, to maintaining the legitimacy of the democratic system’: Gillberg v Sweden [2012] ECHR 569 at [39]; ‘The basic purpose of [the] FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.’: National Labor Relations Board v Robbins Tire & Rubber Co 437 US 214, 242 (1978). Or, put another way, ‘to reinforce “the three basic principles of democratic government, namely, openness, accountability and responsibility.’”: Commissioner of Police v District Court of New South Wales (1993) 31 NSWLR 606 at 612; Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2008] HCA 37, (2008) 234 CLR 27 at [62].

50

For example: confidential information received by a public authority from a third party; information subject to a statutory or contractual proscription on disclosure; or personal information relating to a third person. See §§9– 034 to 9– 038.

51

In Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 at 200, a case concerning qualified privilege, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said that ‘the high importance of freedom to impart and receive information and ideas has been stated so often and so eloquently that this point calls for no elaboration in this case.’

52

The Code ceased to operate on 31 December 2004. The Code only applied to central government departments and agencies.

10

THE RATIONALE FOR OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACCESS LEGISLATION mischief or vice.53 From that convention, it is presumed that Parliament intends that courts and those administering an enactment should do so in such a manner that promotes the remedy: a purposive construction.54 The task is of particular significance for a statute such as the FOI Acts.55 The existence of a public authority’s obligation to disclose or not to disclose information, as well as its obligation to confirm or deny that the information requested is held, is in many instances made to depend upon a balancing of competing facets of the public interest.56 Whilst it is not unusual for the operation of a statutory provision to be part dependent upon the public interest,57 it is unusual to ascribe to it an overriding importance about which an interested party58 is given the adjudicative role. Identification of the purposes of the Act moderates the ability of the decision-maker to assess the public interest by undue reference to the interests of the public authority or to the idiosyncratic views of the decisionmaker. Equally, an identification of purpose guides the exercise of the discretions conferred by

53

Heydon’s case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a. And, more recently: Malloch v Aberdeen Corp [1971] 1 WLR 1578 at 1583–1584 (Lord Reid); Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591 at 614 (Lord Reid); AG ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd v Brotherton [1992] 1 AC 425 at 442 and 447; Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1994] 2 AC 238 esp at 259 (Lord Lowry); R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 2 AC 349 at 362, 376, 391 and 397; R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13, [2003] 2 AC 687 at [21]; Wilson v First County Trust [2004] 1 AC 816 at [56] ‘...no legislation is enacted in a vacuum...’

54

Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 at 617, ‘The days have long passed when the courts adopted a strict constructionist view of interpretation which required them to adopt the literal meaning of the language. The courts now adopt a purposive approach which seeks to give effect to the true purpose of legislation and are prepared to look at much extraneous material that bears upon the background against which the legislation was enacted’ (Lord Griffiths) and 635 (Lord Browne-Wilkinson); Inland Revenue Commissioners v McGuckian [1997] 1 WLR 991 at 999 (Lord Steyn) ‘During the last 30 years there has been a shift away from literalist to purposive methods of construction’; Macniven (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd [2001] UKHL6, [2003] 1 AC 311 at [6] (Lord Nicholls). In relation to those administering the Act: Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 977 at 1039 ‘Where some legal right or entitlement is conferred or enjoyed, and for the purpose of effectuating such right or entitlement a power is conferred upon someone, then words which are permissible in character will sometimes be construed as involving a duty to exercise the power. The purpose and the language of any particular enactment must be considered’ (Lord Morris); Crédit Suisse v Allerdale Borough Council [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 315 at 345; R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 2 AC 349 at 362, 376, 397 and 400.

55

Lord Falconer (Constitutional Affairs Secretary and Lord Chancellor), in a formal address to the International Conference of Information Commissioners, Manchester, 22 May 2006, said: ‘...unless FOI is consciously and carefully maintained, and its purposes are understood by people making requests, and by public officials, FOI can be perceived as a bureaucratic hassle, without any short-term benefit. The public become cynical, and officials fail to see FOI as part of public service and public communication.’ The significance was addressed by Kirby J in Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2008] HCA 37, (2008) 234 CLR 27 at [66] where he said: ‘In the present setting, that purpose is a radical one. It assigns very high importance to a public interest in greater openness and transparency in public administration. Given the historical background, the attitudinal shift that FOI legislation demanded of Ministers, departments, agencies and the public service is nothing short of revolutionary. The courts ought not to obstruct that shift. On the contrary, they should strive to interpret FOI legislation in a manner harmonious with its objectives, doing so to the fullest extent that the text allows.’ Although Osland was concerned with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic), the reasoning is equally applicable to all such legislation, including the FOI Acts.

56

FOIA s 2(1) and (2); FOI(S)A s 2(1).

57

Even though enactments may be seen as an expression of the public interest: Bombay Province v Bombay Municipal Corp [1947] AC 58 at 62–63.

58

Namely, the public authority to whom a request for information has been made.

11

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION the Act,59 including that of whether or not a public authority should rely on an exemption.60 The method for discerning the purpose of an Act or group of provisions in a statute is well known enough: In the absence of [looking at the legislative history and preparatory works] the courts have five principal avenues of approach to the ascertainment of the legislative intention: (1) examination of the social background, as specifically proved if not within common knowledge, in order to identify the social or juristic defect which is the likely subject of remedy; (2) a conspectus of the entire relevant body of the law for the same purpose; (3) particular regard to the long title of the statute to be interpreted (and, where available, the preamble), in which the general legislative objectives will be stated; (4) scrutiny of the actual words to be interpreted in the light of the established canons of interpretation; (5) examination of the other provisions of the statute in question (or of other statutes in pari materia) for the light which they throw on the particular words which are the subject of interpretation.61

1– 013 The background to the introduction of the legislation The White Paper62 that anticipated introduction of an FOI Bill spelled out the purpose of the legislation. In the preface by the Prime Minister it was said: This White Paper explains our proposals for meeting another key pledge—to legislate for freedom of information, bringing about more open Government. The traditional culture of secrecy will only be broken down by giving people in the United Kingdom the legal right to know. This fundamental and vital change in the relationship between government and governed is at the heart of this White Paper.

The Minister in charge of the Bill declared in his foreword:

Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state. This White Paper marks a watershed in the relationship between the government and people of the United Kingdom. At last there is a government ready to trust the people with a legal right to information. This right is central to a mature democracy.

The opening paragraphs gave a straightforward statement of purpose: 1.1

Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in governance and defective decision-making. The perception of excessive secrecy has become a corrosive influence in the decline of public confidence in government. Moreover, the climate

59

‘Hansard has frequently been referred to with a view to ascertaining whether a statutory power has been improperly exercised for an alien purpose or in a wholly unreasonable manner’: Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 at 639; R v Northumbrian Water Ltd , ex p Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority [1999] Env LR 715 at 727 (Collins J). See further: Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 2, [2012] 2 AC 471.

60

See FOIA s 17(1); FOI(S)A s 16(1).

61

Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board [1972] AC 342 at 361, [1972] 1 All ER 105 at 114 (Lord Simon of Glaisdale). Similarly: Black Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591 at 647, [1975] 1 All ER 810 at 844 (Lord Simon of Glaisdale).

62

Cabinet Office, Your Right to Know. The Government's Proposals for a Freedom of Information Act. White Paper (Cm 3818, 1997): www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/caboff/foi/foi.htm

As to the permissibility of considering a White Paper, etc for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief and for drawing inferences as to Parliamentary intention, see: Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 at 630 and 635 (Lord Browne-Wilkinson); R v Northumbrian Water Ltd , ex p Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority [1999] Env LR 715 at 727 (Collins J); R (on the application of Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2002] EWCA Civ 366, [2002] 2 All ER 936 [2002] HRLR 30; Wilson v First County Trust [2004] 1 AC 816 at [56] and [64]; R (G) v London Borough of Barnet [2004] 2 AC 208 at [84]–[85].

12

THE RATIONALE FOR OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACCESS LEGISLATION 1.2

of public opinion has changed: people expect much greater openness and accountability from government than they used to. ......The purpose of the Act will be to encourage more open and accountable government by establishing a general statutory right of access to official records and information.63

1– 014 The purpose of the Act Official information access legislation has been variously considered to serve the following purposes: (1) To enable members of the public to be more informed as to the way in which administrative decisions are made and the basis for such decisions. The House of Commons Select Committee considered that this would improve the quality of government decision-making.64 (2) To enable the curious to find out what information the instruments of government hold about themselves and others.65 (3) To hold government and other bodies to account by drawing out information revealing maladministration.66 Put another way, to supplement the operation of responsible government.67 (4) To impose the discipline of potential revelation upon public authorities in their recording of information. (5) To counteract undue secrecy in the making of decisions and the formulation of policy.68 (6) For any number of commercial ends. (7) As a form of pre-action disclosure or disclosure in judicial review or in connection with tribunal proceedings and the like. The ‘mischief’ or ‘vice’ giving rise to the need for the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was acknowledged as a matter of public record by the Minister in introducing the Bill that became the Act: Unnecessary secrecy in Government and our public services has long been held to undermine good governance and public administration, ...the Bill will not only provide legal rights for the public and place legal duties on Ministers and public authorities, but will help

63

See also para 2.5 of the White Paper.

64

House of Commons, Public Administration—Third Report (Cm 4355, 1999) para 12:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmpubadm/570/57007.htm

For judicial support, see London Regional Transport v Mayor of London [2001] EWCA Civ 1491 [2003] EMLR 4 at [40], quoting Sullivan J with approval. In Kuijer v Council of the European Union (No 2) [2002] 1 WLR 1941 at [52] the Court of First Instance, dealing with Council Directive 93/731/EC, said: ‘It is first necessary to point out that the principle of transparency is intended to secure a more significant role for citizens in the decision-making process and to ensure that the administration acts with greater propriety, efficiency and responsibility vis-à-vis the citizens in a democratic system. It helps strengthen the principle of democracy and respect for fundamental rights.’ See, further: Case C-64/05 IFAW gGmbH v European Commission [2008] QB 902 (Opinion of Advocate General Maduro, 18 July 2007) at [53]. 65

House of Commons, Public Administration—Third Report (Cm 4355, 1999) para 12 (see n 64).

66

United States Department of Justice v Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 US 749 at 773.

67

Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2008] HCA 37, (2008) 234 CLR 27 at [62]; Egan v Willis [1998] HCA 71 at [42] (High Court of Australia).

68

House of Commons, Public Administration—Third Report (Cm 4355, 1999) para 12 (see n 64).

13

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION to transform the culture of Government from one of secrecy to one of openness. It will transform the default setting from “this should be kept quiet unless” to “this should be published unless.” By doing so, it should raise public confidence in the processes of government, and enhance the quality of decision making by the Government.69

And, a little later:

The Bill will lead to cultural change throughout the public sector. There will be more information about how health authorities, local councils and the police deliver services. It will give citizens a right to know and a right to appeal to the commissioner if they do not get the information that they have sought. That is a fundamental change in the relationship between the citizens and the state.70

It is implicit in the above statements that the voluntary code to which the same public sector had been subject for the preceding eight years had not effected the ‘cultural’ or ‘fundamental’ change hoped for the FOI Acts.71 The most significant dissimilarity between the Code and the FOI Acts is the replacement of voluntariness with compulsion.72 This dependence upon compulsion to secure the cultural change from the regime which pervaded under the voluntary Code gives support to the proposition that notions of due deference to a public authority’s claims of exemption should play little or no part in the determination of claims of exemption save to the extent that they are substantiated by objective evidence. Domestic jurisprudence since the Act has come into force has recognised its basic objectives and significance: FOIA introduced a radical change to our law, and the rights of the citizen to be informed about the acts and affairs of public authorities.73

And, from the Supreme Court:

It is common ground that the 2000 Act was enacted in order to promote an important public interest in access to information about public bodies. There are ... thousands of public

69

Hansard HC vol 340 col 714 (7 December 1999) (Mr Jack Straw). In the construction of a statute, reference may be made to Parliamentary materials ‘where (a) legislation is ambiguous, obscure or leads to an absurdity; (b) the material relied upon consists of one or more statements by a minister or other promoter of the Bill together if necessary with such other Parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such statements and their effect; (c) the statements relied upon are clear...’: Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 at 640 (Lord Browne-Wilkinson). Satisfaction of these three conditions is critical to the entitlement to refer to the material: R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 2 AC 349 at 391–392 (Lord Bingham) and at 398–399 (Lord Nicholls). It has been said that the true purpose in referring to Hansard is to ‘preven[t] the executive from placing a different meaning on the words used in legislation from that which they attributed to those words when promoting the legislation in Parliament...’: R v A (No 2) [2001] UKHL 25, [2002] 1 AC 45 at [81] (Lord Steyn). Similarly stated in Johan Steyn, ‘Pepper v Hart: A re-examination’ (2001) 21 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 59.

70

Hansard HC vol 340 col 725 (7 December 1999) (Mr Jack Straw). Similarly, cols 728, 738-739; 744–745 (‘the legislation transforming the relationship between citizen and state’); 754–755; 771–772; Hansard HL vol 612 cols 830, 831, 835, 837, 847, 849, 853, 858–859, 862 (20 April 2000); Hansard HL vol 618 col 440 (25 October 2000).

71

Thus, Lord Phillips in The BSE Inquiry—The Report (2000) found that there had been ‘positive censorship’ (vol 3, para 2.175) in relation to information relating to zoonotic qualities of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE); that there was a ‘clear policy of restricting the disclosure of information about BSE’ (vol 3, para 2.189); and he spoke of a policy of secrecy rather than one of openness (vol 3, para 2.191). Similarly, Sir Richard Scott’s Report of the Inquiry into the Export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods and Related Prosecutions (1996): ‘in circumstances where disclosure might be politically or administratively inconvenient, the balance struck by the government came down, time and time again, against full disclosure’ (para D1.165). The unlikelihood of cultural change and the importance of compulsion were adverted to by the House of Commons, Constitutional Affairs Committee, Freedom of Information—One Year On, Seventh Report of Session 2005-06, HC 991 at paras 112–113:

72

At any rate, so far as concerns central government departments and agencies.

73

OGC v IC [2008] EWHC 774 (Admin), [2010] QB 98, [2008] ACD 54 at [68].

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmconst/991/991.pdf

14

THE RATIONALE FOR OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACCESS LEGISLATION authorities, large and small, which are paid for out of public funds, and whose actions or omissions may have a profound effect on citizens and residents of the United Kingdom. There is a strong public interest in the press and general public having the right, subject to appropriate safeguards, to require public authorities to provide information about their activities. It adds to parliamentary scrutiny a further and more direct route to a measure of public accountability.74

1– 015 The purpose of the exemptions There is a corresponding need to understand the purpose of the exemptions. The White Paper described long-recognised interests which fell to be substantially prejudiced by disclosure. It proposed seven such interests.75 It characterised the Code of Practice as being too restrictive: We believe the 15 exemptions in the Code of Practice can be substantially reduced. Indeed, we do not propose that the Act should contain exempt categories at all, but rather that disclosure should be assessed on a ‘contents basis’, records being disclosed in partial form with any necessary deletions, rather than being completely withheld...We have provisionally identified seven ‘specified interests’ in place of the Code’s exemptions.

1– 016 The purpose of freedom of information legislation: comparative jurisprudence The US Supreme Court summarised the object of such legislation:

The basic purpose of [the Freedom of Information Act] is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.76

The Supreme Court of Canada expressed it as follows:

The [Access to Information] Act is concerned with securing values of participation and accountability in the democratic process. The overarching purpose of access to information legislation is to facilitate democracy by helping to ensure that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry…Rights to state-held information are designed to improve the workings of government; to make it more effective, responsive and accountable.77

Most recently, in the High Court of Australia, Kirby J, after a consideration of the evolution of such legislation in Australia, said:78 The basic purpose of the introduction of freedom of information legislation is the same in all jurisdictions. It is to reinforce “the three basic principles of democratic government, namely, openness, accountability and responsibility”. The central objective is to strengthen constitutional principles of governance not always translated into reality because of a lack of material information available to electors. Fundamentally, the idea behind such legislation is to flesh out the constitutional provisions establishing the system of representative

74

BBC v Sugar (No 2) [2012] UKSC 4, [2012] 1 WLR 439, [2012] EMLR 17, [2012] 2 All ER 509 at [76] per Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe JSC.

75

White Paper para 3.11.

76

National Labor Relations Board v Robbins Tire & Rubber Co (1978) 437 US 214 at 242. Similarly: National Archives and Record Administration v Favish, 541 US 157 (2004) at 171-72.

77

Dagg v Canada (Minister of Finance) [1997] 2 SCR 403 at 432–433 and 450. Similarly, Canada Post Corp v Canada (Minister of Public Works) [1995] 2 FC 110 (FCA) at 124.

78

Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2008] HCA 37 at [62].

15

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION government; to increase citizen participation in government beyond a fleeting involvement on election days; and to reduce the degree of apathy and cynicism sometimes arising from a lack of real elector knowledge about, or influence upon, what is going on in government.

And in Ireland:79

The passing of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 constituted a legislative development of major importance. By it, the Oireachtas took a considered and deliberate step which dramatically alters the administrative assumptions and culture of centuries. It replaces the presumption of secrecy with one of openness. It is designed to open up the workings of government and administration to scrutiny. It is not designed simply to satisfy the appetite of the media for stories. It is for the benefit of every citizen. It lets light in to the offices and filing cabinets of our rulers. The principle of free access to publicly held information is part of a world-wide trend. The general assumption is that it originates in the Scandinavian countries. The Treaty of Amsterdam adopted a new Article 255 of the EC Treaty providing that every citizen of the European Union should have access to the documents of the European Parliament, Council and Commission.

1– 017 The long title and the absence of a purpose clause It is unusual for an Act of Parliament to have a purpose clause.80 To the extent permitted by a single sentence, the purpose of an Act is normally only expressly articulated within a statute by its long title. For the reasons noted above, ascertainment of the purpose of the Act is of particular importance in statutes such as the FOI Acts.81 An amendment to the Bill that would have seen a purpose clause included in the Act was defeated.82 Instead, it was considered that changing the preposition about in the long title of the Bill to for would adequately articulate the purpose of the Act.83 Although not having the status of a purpose clause, the following formal statement by the then Constitutional Affairs Secretary and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, describes the aim more clearly than would be possible in a statute: FOI regimes, wherever they may be, are usually established from common principles. Governments have been motivated by citizen empowerment; by the desire to drive more democratic engagement; by the need to fight corruption; and by the simple notion that openness is a public good. More recently, Freedom of Information has been introduced in many countries because it is seen as a standard part of a liberal democracy.84

79

Sheedy v Information Commissioner [2005] 2 IR 272 at 275

80

But not unknown, see eg: Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 s 1; Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s 240; Education Act 2002 s 1; Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 s 1.

81

The inclusion of a purpose clause was recommended by the House of Commons, Public Administration–Third Report (Cm 4355, 1999) para 59 (see n 64). A purpose clause is to be found in: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth of Australia) s 3 (substituted by the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Act 2010); Official Information Act 1982 (NZ) s 4; Access to Information Act (1982)(Canada) s 2. The Freedom of Information Act 1997 (Ireland), although not including a purpose clause, includes a comprehensive statement of purpose in its long title.

82

Hansard HC vol 347 col 830 (4 April 2000) (Amendment No 100). For discussion on the proposed purpose clause, see: Hansard HC vol 347 cols 830–855 (4 April 2000); Hansard HL vol 617 cols 886–888 and 892–900 (17 October 2000). It was opposed on the basis that it was ‘pointless’ because it would add nothing to what was explained ‘more comprehensively’ in the long title and that it would cause confusion to those minded to compare the long title with the purpose clause: Hansard HC vol 347 col 844 (4 April 2000) (Mr Mike O'Brien); Hansard HL vol 617 col 894 (17 October 2000) (Lord Brennan).

83

An amendment proposed by Lord Archer: Hansard HL vol 617 col 890 (17 October 2000)

84

Speech by Lord Falconer (Constitutional Affairs Secretary and Lord Chancellor) to the International Conference of Information Commissioners, Manchester, 22 May 2006.

16

BACKGROUND TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

4.

BACKGROUND TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

1– 018 Access to official information in the United Kingdom As noted above,85 rights of access to official information in the United Kingdom increased in a piecemeal fashion in the 40 years prior to the enactment of the FOI Acts. It may fairly be observed that in that period Parliament showed a greater disposition to impose duties of disclosure upon the emanations of local government than it did upon central government departments or agencies. Notable increases in the right of access came with: — the Local Government Act 1972 Part VA (ss 100A–100K) s 228, Sch 12A,86 — the Data Protection Act 1984,87 — the Health Service Joint Consultative Committees (Access to Information) Act 1986,88 — the Access to Personal Files Act 1987,89 — the Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Act 1988 (which applied, with modifications, the provisions of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 to community health councils established under s 20 of the National Health Service Act 1977),90 and — the Access to Health Records Act 1990.91 Where central government departments or agencies found themselves having to disclose information, this was generally the result of outside obligations.92

85

See §1– 001.

86

These provisions were inserted by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. They are considered in greater detail at §§8– 005 to 8– 022.

87

Section 21 of the Data Protection Act 1984 introduced the concept of a ‘subject-access request’ in which a person could seek access to information held by an organisation (which included private organisations as well as governmental organisations) about himself. The right was re-enacted and broadened by s 7 of the DPA. The right is considered in greater detail in ch 5.

88

Repealed by the Health Act 1999 s 65, Sch 4 para 72 and Sch 5, with effect from 1 April 2000 (in England) and 1 January 2001 (in Wales).

89

Repealed by the DPA s 74(2) Sch 16 Pt I, as from 1 March 2000. Similarly the Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations 1989 and the Access to Personal Files (Housing) Regulations 1989 made under it. The purpose of this Act was to catch personal information that was recorded in ‘manual files’ and which, accordingly, fell outside the ambit of the Data Protection Act 1984. The Act came into force on 15 May 1987 and provided a right of access to personal information (which was defined in the same way as in the Data Protection Act 1984) falling within defined categories and held by ‘Housing Act local authorities’ and by ‘local social services authorities’.

90

The Act is considered in greater detail at §8– 038.

91

This establishes a right of access to health records held by, inter alia, ‘health service bodies’ (ie a health authority, a health board, a special health authority or a National Health Service trust) for the individuals to whom the record relates and certain other persons. The Act is considered in greater detail at §8– 039.

92

Such as the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, which implemented Council Directive 90/313/EEC on the freedom of access to information on the environment, and the DPA, which implemented Directive 95/46, adopted by the European Parliament and European Council on 24 October 1998. These are considered in detail in chs 6 and 5 respectively.

17

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION 1– 019 Attempts at a comprehensive right of access From 1974 onwards, the Labour Party would before each General Election state a commitment to ‘freedom of information’. The first indication of any realisation of that commitment was a directive issued in 1977 by the head of the Civil Service.93 This promised to release more of the background detail and information behind Ministerial decisions. In March 1979 the Labour Government published a Green Paper on Open Government, which proposed a non-statutory code for the release of official information.94 At about the same time a private member’s Bill that would have compelled disclosure of official documents was introduced by Sir Clement Freud MP.95 Both the non-statutory code and private Member’s Bill did not survive the General Election of May 1979. In 1981 another freedom of information Bill, also drafted by the Outer Circle Policy Unit, was introduced by Frank Hooley MP. The Bill was opposed by the Conservative Government and defeated at second reading. 1– 020 The Data Protection Act 1984 In 1981 the Council of Europe opened for signature and ratification its Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Automatic Processing of Personal Data. This ultimately led to the Data Protection Act 1984. Although this gave an individual a right of access to information relating to himself provided that it was held as part of a data processing system, the focus of the Act was not the extraction of information from governmental bodies: the right given by the Act applied to personal information irrespective of the identity of the body that held it. In 1984 a freedom of information Bill drafted by the Campaign for Freedom of Information was introduced by David Steel MP. At the same time the Campaign for Freedom of Information also pressed for the introduction of subject-specific legislation establishing more limited rights of access to information. Legislation receiving its support included the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985,96 the Access to Personal Files Act 1987,97 and the Access to Medical Reprts Act 1988.98 The Campaign for Freedom of Information made another attempt at a comprehensive information access Bill in January 1991, but it only lasted 45 minutes in Parliament and did not get a second reading.99 In the following 93

The Directive was actually a confidential memorandum from the Head of the Civil Service, Sir Douglas Allen, who became Lord Croham. It was published officially after it was leaked to The Times. The directive became known as the ‘Croham directive’.

94

Open Government (Cmnd 7520).

95

Then Mr Clement Freud MP, Isle of Ely.

96

It was introduced as a private member’s Bill promoted by the Community Rights Project and introduced by Robin Squire MP. It gave the public wider rights of access to council meetings, reports and papers. See §§8– 005 to 8– 022.

97

This was also the result of a private member’s Bill promoted by the Campaign for Freedom of Information and introduced by Archy Kirkwood MP. It gave people the right to see manually held social work and housing records about themselves. The Bill originally also included access to school records, but this was later brought in under existing legislation by agreement with the Government.

98

This was another private member’s Bill drafted by the Campaign for Freedom of Information and introduced by Archy Kirkwood MP. It gives people the right to see any report produced by their own doctor for an employer or insurance company. See §8– 039.

99

This was introduced by Archy Kirkwood MP.

18

THE OPEN GOVERNMENT CODE OF PRACTICE year the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 were adopted to implement the Access to Environmental Information Directive of the European Community. On 7 February 1992 the Final Act of the Treaty of the European Union was signed at Mastricht. Declaration No 17 annexed to it recited the importance of transparency of the decision-making process.100 In that same year, Roy Hattersley MP, the then shadow Home Secretary, promised that a freedom of information act would be the first piece of Home Office legislation if Labour were to win the election. The Conservatives won the election and William Waldegrave was given responsibility for implementing an ‘open government’ policy. In early 1993 a private member’s Bill entitled The Right to Know Bill was introduced101 into Parliament. This Bill had its second reading in the House of Commons and completed its Committee stage, but it failed to receive the necessary support.

5.

THE OPEN GOVERNMENT CODE OF PRACTICE

1– 021 The Code of Practice In July 1993 the Conservative Government issued a White Paper which proposed a Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. In 1994 that Government issued a Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.102 This was the first true attempt at a comprehensive scheme for the release of official information. But it was voluntary in nature, conferring no enforceable right of access. In 1996 the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration published its report on the operation of the voluntary scheme. It recommended that a freedom of information act be introduced. The Government rejected the recommendation and instead issued a slightly revised version of the Code in February 1997. 1– 022 Application The Code applied to bodies falling within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and it was the Commissioner who enforced the Code.103 These bodies included almost all central government departments and their agencies, as well as many other public bodies. The Code contained a non-statutory, discretionary regime. It did not confer rights of access to information of any kind upon any person or class of persons. Nor did it override any statutory prohibitions upon the release of information or documents. Where information that fell, in principle, within the scope of the Code was also available pursuant to a statutory right of access, that right took precedence and the release of the information in

100

101 102

The declaration is reproduced at §4– 002. Its importance was noted in Common Services Agency v IC [2008] UKHL 47, [2008] 1 WLR 1550 at [3]. This was introduced by Mark Fisher MP. The code was revised in 1997 and remained in effect until 1 January 2005: www.foi.gov.uk/ogcode981.htm

The Cabinet Office also published Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information: Guidance on Interpretation, 2nd edn (1997). 103

Code of Practice, paras 3 and 6.

19

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION question was governed thereby.104 In particular, the Code expressly stated that it was not intended to override statutory provisions on access to public records, whether over or under 30 years old. The reason for this lay in the fact that the Ombudsman was not required, under s 12(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, to question the merits of a decision if it had been taken without maladministration by a government department or other body in the exercise of a discretion vested in it; and decisions made in England and Wales with respect to public records by the Lord Chancellor, or in Scotland and Northern Ireland by the corresponding Secretary of State were such discretionary decisions.105 1– 023 The Code’s five main commitments The Code’s five main commitments were to supply facts and analysis with major policy decisions; to open up internal guidelines about departments’ dealings with the public; to supply reasons for administrative decisions; to provide information about public services, what they cost, targets, performance, complaints and redress; and to respond to requests for information. 1– 024 The purpose and aims of the Code The Code was intended to give effect to the Government’s stated policy of extending access to official information. The approach to the release of information that it embodied rested on an explicit assumption that information should be disclosed, except where its release would not be in the public interest.106 Cases where the release of information would not be in the public interest were described in Part II of the Code. Exemptions under the Code may therefore be seen as the articulation of those circumstances where it was considered to have been not in the public interest (at least in the view of the Cabinet Office) to disclose information. The Code had three aims, subsidiary to its overall purposes.107 These were: to improve policy-making and the democratic process by extending access to the facts and analyses which provide the basis for the consideration of proposed policy; to protect the interests of individuals and companies by ensuring that reasons are given for administrative decisions, except where there is statutory authority or established convention to the contrary; and to support and extend the principles of public service established by the Citizen’s Charter. 1– 025 Protection of privacy and confidentiality under the Code The Code recognised that these objectives had to be balanced against the need to keep information private or confidential in certain circumstances. In particular, it expressly recognised that the aims of the Code had to be balanced against two countervailing requirements: namely, the need to maintain high standards of care in ensuring the privacy of personal and commercially confidential information, and the need to preserve confidentiality where disclosure would not be in the public interest or would breach personal privacy or the confidences of a third party in accordance with statutory requirements and Part II of the

104

Code of Practice, para 8. The bodies in question are listed in Sch 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

105

Code of Practice, para 9.

106

Code of Practice, para 1.

107

Code of Practice, para 2.

20

THE OPEN GOVERNMENT CODE OF PRACTICE Code.108 1– 026 Information released under the Code Subject to the exemptions contained in Part II, the Code committed Government departments and applicable public bodies to publishing the facts and analyses that the Government considered relevant and important in framing major policy proposals and decisions, and, ordinarily, to making such information available once those policies and decisions had been announced. The second Code commitment was to publish, or otherwise make available, explanatory material on departments’ dealings with the public (including such rules, procedures, internal guidance to officials, and similar administrative manuals as would assist better understanding of departmental action in dealing with the public) except where publication could prejudice any matter which should properly be kept confidential under Part II of the Code. Thirdly, the Code enshrined a commitment on behalf of the bodies to which it applied to give reasons for administrative decisions to those affected, and to publish in accordance with the Citizen’s Charter full information about how public services were run, how much they cost, who was in charge, and what complaints and redress procedures were available; and full and (where possible) comparable sets of information about what services were being provided, what targets were set, what standards of service were expected and the results that had been achieved. The final Code commitment was to release, in response to specific requests, information relating to the policies of the bodies covered, as well as information relating to their actions and decisions and other matters related to their areas of responsibility.109 The Code did not require the release of information that the relevant public bodies did not themselves possess, or to provide information that had already been published, or to provide information which was provided as part of an existing service other than through that service.110 1– 027 Bodies specifically exempted from the Code The Security and Intelligence Services were not within the scope of the Code, and information obtained from or relating to them was not covered by it.111 The Code did not apply to or affect information held by courts or tribunals or inquiries, or information contained in the documents of such bodies.112 1– 028 Information excluded by Part II of the Code Part II of the Code excluded fifteen categories of information from the commitment of disclosure set out in Part I. These categories of information were variously subject to two kinds of exemption from the assumption that information was to be disclosed, namely an exemption which applied in cases where a ‘harm’ or ‘prejudice’ test was satisfied, and an exemption that was absolute in the sense that no harm or prejudice test applied. ‘Harm’ and ‘prejudice’, for the purposes of Part II of the Code, included actual harm and prejudice and a risk or 108 109

Code of Practice, para 2. Code of Practice, para 3.

110

Code of Practice, para 4.

111

Code of Practice, para 6.

112

Code of Practice, para 10.

21

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION reasonable expectation of harm or prejudice. The Code explained that in such cases, consideration should be given to whether any harm or prejudice arising from disclosure was outweighed by the public interest in making the information available.113 The Ombudsman interpreted the ‘harm’ test under the Code as allowing for a balancing of public interests, such that information should be disclosed when the public interest was best served thereby.114 The categories of exempt information that were subject to a ‘harm’ test under Part II of the Code included information relating to defence,115 security116 and international relations;117 and information whose disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion.118 The Code gave as examples of the latter kind of information: the proceedings of Cabinet and Cabinet committees; internal opinion, advice, recommendations, consultation and deliberation; projections and assumptions relating to internal policy and analysis, analysis of alternative policy options and information relating to rejected policy options; and confidential communications between departments, public bodies and regulatory bodies. The categories of information that were subject to an absolute exemption included information relating to confidential communications with the Royal Household;119 and information relating to public employment and public appointments and honours.120 Most of the fifteen categories of excluded information were, however, subject to a ‘harm’ or ‘prejudice’ test of some form or other. 1– 029 Procedure for obtaining information covered by the Code Information that was made available by the Code could be obtained simply by writing to the relevant department, agency or body and explaining what information was required. It was not necessary to specify particular files or documents. The Code specified that departments should reply to most requests within 20 working days, and should inform the maker of the request that they need longer to reply, if that was the case. Most information had to be provided free of charge, especially where it was needed to explain such matters as benefits, grants and entitlements; the standards and performances of services; the reasons for administrative decisions made with respect to the person requesting information; the way in which the person requesting information might exercise rights to appeal or complain about a decision; or regulatory requirements bearing upon the business of the person making the request. If the request did not fall within any one or more of the above categories, however, then a charge could be imposed for supplying it. 1– 030 Enforcement of the Code As noted above, the Code did not confer rights of access to information upon anyone. If a 113

Code of Practice, Pt II.

114

Case A8/00 HC 494 (1999–00), Case A31/99 HC 21 (1999–00).

115

See now FOIA s 26, FOI(S)A s 31.

116

See now FOIA ss 23, 24, FOI(S)A s 31.

117

See now FOIA s 27, FOI(S)A s 32.

118

See now FOIA ss 35, 36, FOI(S)A ss 29, 30.

119

See now FOIA s 37, FOI(S)A s 41.

120

See now FOIA s 37, FOI(S)A s 41.

22

ENACTMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 department did not comply with a request for information the matter might be taken up by the Ombudsman, who could, however, only instigate an investigation upon the referral of a complaint from an MP. The Ombudsman could then recommend disclosure or uphold the department’s decision not to disclose. The Ombudsman’s recommendations were not legally binding, although in practice most departments complied with them. 1– 031 Relationship between the Code and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 It will be noted from the above outline that the Code bore some resemblance to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in its structure. Once the Act came fully into force (1 January 2005), the Code ceased to operate. Despite the absence of an enforceable right, the Code was an important step in the evolution of information rights in the United Kingdom. Given the continued official acknowledgment of a ‘culture of secrecy’ after its implementation, the attributes distinguishing the Freedom of Information Act 2000 from it may be seen as critical to countering that culture.121 Most notable is the conferral of an enforceable right of access and the imposition of a correlative duty to disclose. The Code also provides valuable insight into the public interest in disclosure of information held by a public authority and in the public authority maintaining the various exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is to be noted that the Act provides a qualified exemption in respect of information that the Code did not exempt, so that the Code’s treatment of that information could be of some relevance to the consideration of the public interest under s 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 1– 032 The Data Protection Act 1998 The Data Protection Act 1998 implemented an EC Directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.122 It replaced the Data Protection Act 1984. The 1998 Act, and subordinate legislation made under it, effected major changes to the data protection regime, including access to personal data. The new Act removed the limitation on subject-access rights to computerised records, extending it to most manual records. It widened the definition of ‘processing’ so that it included obtaining, storing and disclosing of data.

6.

ENACTMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

1– 033 Parliamentary history of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 Before the May 1997 General Election, both the Labour Party and Liberal Democrat party had promised to introduce freedom of information legislation if elected. The former secured election in May 1997, and in December 1997 a White Paper123 was published, setting out its 121

The difficulty of effecting a cultural change and the importance of the enforceable right was acknowledged by the House of Commons, Constitutional Affairs Committee, Freedom of Information — One Year On, Seventh Report of Session 2005–06, HC 991 at paras 112–113 (see n 71).

122

Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data 95/46/EC [1995] OJ L281/31.

123

Your Right to Know—The Government's Proposals for a Freedom of Information Act (Cm 3818, 1997): see n 62. The

23

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION proposals for legislation. On 19 May 1998 the House of Commons Select Committee reported on the proposals,124 stating in its Introduction: Freedom of Information Act is a major plank in the Government’s proposals for constitutional reform, and a radical advance in open and accountable government. It will help to begin to change for good the secretive culture of the public service. Lack of openness and transparency in British government have featured in tribunals and inquiries as a contributory factor in many cases where things have gone seriously wrong ... [M]aking government more open is something which should have a serious impact on the daily lives of ordinary people. In other countries with Freedom of Information laws, most requests for information are for “my own file.” Public authorities keep a vast amount of information about individuals. Some of this they can now get access to, under a patchwork of statutes and codes of practice. Some of it they still cannot get. Many people may want access to their files in order to pursue a dispute with a government department or other public authority. Individuals who are unhappy with the way they have been dealt with by, for example, the Child Support Agency or the Benefits Agency, or local Housing Authorities and Social Services Departments have a strong need to see how the authority concerned has handled their case… Freedom of Information should change the culture within the public sector so that the sort of obstruction that members of the public experienced in these cases no longer happens. We believe that the proposals, if implemented as presented in the White Paper, will have three purposes and effects. Increased access to information will: — Make it easier for members of the public to find out what information government holds about themselves. — Make it easier for politicians, journalists and members of the public to hold the government to account by making government cover-ups more difficult. — Make it easier for members of the public to participate in an informed way in the discussion of policy issues, and improve the quality of government decision-making because those drafting policy advice know that they must be able, ultimately, to defend their reasoning before public opinion. We believe that Dr Clark’s proposals will begin to bring about a significant change in the culture of the UK Government.

The Report made a total of 44 recommendations and observations. In July 1998 responsibility for the Bill was transferred from the Cabinet Office to the Home Office. The Government officially responded to the Report.125 The Minister then responsible, Dr David Clark, said: The Government’s commitment to a radical Freedom of Information Act is clear, and has already been set out in Your Right to Know…FOI is a key part—and in my view a central part—of the Government’s programme to modernise British politics through radical constitutional change. The Prime Minister has said that freedom of information is not some isolated constitutional reform, but a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country...

1– 034 The consultation paper and draft Bill document was prepared by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Dr David Clark. 124

Third Report of the Select Committee on Public Administration: Your Right to Know—The Government’s Proposals for a Freedom of Information Act, HC (1997–1998) 398–I.

125

The Government’s reply to the Report was the Fourth Special Report of the Select Committee on Public Administration: Government Response to the Third Report from the Select Committee on Public Administration (Session 1997–1998) on Your Right to Know—The Government's Proposals for a Freedom of Information Act, HC (1997–1998) 1020:

www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmpubadm/1020/102002.htm

24

ENACTMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 On 24 May 1999 the Government published a consultation paper with its proposals for freedom of information legislation, including a draft Bill.126 The consultation paper was followed by a process of pre-legislative scrutiny by committees in both Houses of Parliament and a period of further public consultation. The House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration reported on 29 July 1999,127 summarising its conclusions and recommendations: 1. We welcome the fact that the Government has published a draft Freedom of Information Bill. Legislation on the information rights of citizens is a historic moment for our democracy. However, we believe that the present form of the Bill has significant deficiencies which, if not remedied, will undermine its potential. In particular we recommend that: — There should be a purpose clause stating a clear presumption in favour of disclosure as a right of citizenship; — The public interest in disclosing particular information in each case should be balanced against the prospect of harm in so doing; the information should be released if the public interest is greater; and decisions about where the balance lies in particular cases should be transparent, and reviewable by an Information Commissioner, whose decisions are enforceable; — The right of access to information should apply as broadly as possible, and exemptions to it should be drawn as narrowly and precisely as possible with a more demanding harm test; — A statutory freedom of information regime should contain, as much as possible, enforceable rights of access to information; not undertakings to consider the discretionary release of information,... We believe that this will make the draft Bill better, our democracy stronger, and the information rights of citizens more effective.

The House of Lords appointed its own select committee on 17 June 1999, which reported on 27 July 1999.128 Its recommendations included: 63. The draft Bill should provide a framework for transforming the “culture of secrecy” in British government.... 64. If the draft Bill is to conform to true Freedom of Information principles, the most important single amendment needed is to give the Information Commissioner a public interest override power in clause 44 to overrule a ministerial decision under clause 14, and to order disclosure. .... 82. The draft Bill does not need a purpose clause but the Long Title should be amended by leaving out the words “make provision about the disclosure of information” and substituting “facilitate the disclosure of information.” This would clarify the draft Bill’s purpose of providing a framework for transforming the “culture of secrecy” in British government.

The Government’s response to the Report of the House of Commons Select Committee was published on 27 October 1999.129 The document said that it agreed with the bulk of the Select 126

Home Office, Freedom of Information: Consultation on draft legislation (Cm 4355, May 1999):

127

House of Commons, Public Administration—Third Report (Cm 4355, 1999) (see n 64).

128

Draft Freedom of Information Bill—First Report (Select Committee Report HL 97), Session 1998–1999, 27 July 1999:

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ERORecords/HO/421/2/foi/dfoibill.htm

www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldfoinfo/97/9701.htm 129

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmpubadm/831/83102.htm

25

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION Committee’s recommendations. The Government’s response to the Report of the House of Lords Select Committee was published on 17 January 2000.130 That document, too, said that it agreed with the bulk of the Select Committee’s recommendations. 1– 035 The Freedom of Information Bill The Freedom of Information Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 18 November 1999, and received its second reading on 7 December 1999. It enjoyed a close Parliamentary scrutiny before receiving Royal Assent on 30 November 2000.131 1– 036 Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 The Act was brought into force incrementally over the next four years. The initial implementation of the Act was concerned with publication schemes, the establishment of the Information Commissioner and the introduction of concepts basic to the operation of the Act.132 A few further such provisions came into force on 1 February 2001.133 The renaming of the Data Protection Tribunal took effect from 14 May 2001.134 On 13 November 2001, the Lord Chancellor announced in Parliament an implementation plan for the Act: The Act will be fully implemented by January 2005, 11 months before the timetable set out in the Act itself. The publication scheme provisions will be implemented first, on a rolling programme, starting with central government in November 2002. I am today placing a full schedule of organisations and dates of implementation in the Libraries of both Houses. This roll-out [ie of publication scheme provisions] will be completed in June 2004, and the individual right of access to information held by all public authorities, including government departments, will be implemented in January 2005.

The requirement on each public authority to produce a publication scheme began with named public authorities on 30 November 2002, widening over the course of 2003.135 The requirement for the Lord Chancellor to issue a Code of Practice and for the Information Commissioner to issue practice recommendations and to promote good practice also took effect 130

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ERORecords/HO/421/2/foi/dfoilsc.htm

131

The stages and dates of the Act's progress are as follows: In the House of Commons: (1) Introduction, 18 November 1999, Hansard vol 339 col 124; (2) Second Reading, 7 December 1999, Hansard vol 340 cols 714–798; Committee, 1st Sitting, 21 December 1999; 2nd Sitting, 11 January 2000; 3rd Sitting, 11 January 2000; 4th Sitting, 18 January 2000; 5th Sitting, 18 January 2000; 6th Sitting, 20 January 2000 [Pt I]; 6th Sitting 20 January 2000 [Pt II]; 7th Sitting, 25 January 2000; 8th Sitting, 25 January 2000; 9th Sitting, 27 January 2000; 10th Sitting, 1 February 2000; 11th Sitting, 1 February 2000; 12th Sitting, 8 February 2000; 13th Sitting, 8 February 2000; 14th Sitting, 10 February 2000; (4) Report and Third Reading, 4 April 2000, Hansard vol 1857 cols 830–935; 5 April 2000, Hansard vol 1857 cols 981–1123; (5) Royal Assent, 30 November 2000 vol 1877 col 1231. In the House of Lords: (1) Introduction, 6 April 2000, vol 1802, col 1490; (2) Second Reading, 20 April 2000, Hansard vol 612 cols 823–893; (3) Committee, 17 October 2000, Hansard vol 617 cols 883–954 and 971–1020; 19 October 2000, Hansard vol 617 cols 1208–1300; 24 October 2000, Hansard vol 618 cols 273–314; 25 October 2000, Hansard vol 618 cols 407–476; (4) Report, 14 November 2000, Hansard vol 1824 cols 134–158 and 173–266; (5) Third Reading, 22 November 2000, Hansard vol 1825 cols 817–852; (6) Royal Assent, 30 November 2000, Hansard vol 1826 col 1492.

132

These provisions came into force on 30 November 2000: FOIA s 87(1).

133

FOIA s 87(2).

134

FOIA (Commencement No 1) Order 2001 SI 2001/1637. The Order also brought into force provisions relating to the appointment of members to the Tribunal and certain provisions relating to the Information Commissioner.

135

FOIA (Commencement No 2) Order 2002 SI 2002/2812.

26

SCOTLAND, WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND on that date. The publication scheme requirements were extended to smaller public authorities over the course of the first half of 2004.136 The remainder of the Act, including the enforceable right of access to information held by public authorities, came into force on 1 January 2005.137 On that same day, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 came into force.

7.

SCOTLAND, WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND

1– 037 Scotland: the demarcation The applicability of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and of the Data Protection Act 1998 to Scotland, as well as the scope of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, reflect the settlement of legislative powers effected by the Scottish devolution in 1998. Section 1(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 established a Scottish Parliament, which has a limited, devolved power to make laws with respect to certain matters in Scotland.138 It does not have the power to make laws with respect to ‘reserved matters’, which remain within the exclusive competence of Westminster.139 Moreover, Westminster retains its plenary power to make laws with respect to Scotland,140 although the understanding is that it will not generally exercise that power in relation to devolved matters.141 In relation to the right of access to official information, the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament is limited to public authorities that operate purely in or as regards Scotland.142 1– 038 Background In July 1999 the Scottish Executive published a Code of Practice on Access to Scottish Executive Information.143 The Code stated its aims and purpose as being: 1. This Code of Practice supports Scottish Ministers’ policy of extending access to official information, and responding to reasonable requests for information. The approach to release of information should in all cases be based on the assumption that information should

136

FOIA (Commencement No 3) Order 2003 SI 2003/2603.

137

FOIA (Commencement No 4) Order 2004 SI 2004/1909, dealing with environmental information. FOIA (Commencement No 5) Order 2004 SI 2004/3122, dealing with everything else.

138

Scotland Act 1998 ss 28–29. Its statutes are known as Acts of the Scottish Parliament: s 28(1).

139

Scotland Act 1998 ss 29(2)(b) and 30(1). Reserved matters are listed in Sch 5. Specifically reserved at Pt II s.B13 is ‘public access to information held by public bodies or holders of public offices (including Government departments and persons acting on behalf of the Crown).’ An exception to this reservation is made in relation to information held by the Scottish Parliament, any part of the Scottish Administration, the Scottish Parliamentary corporation and any Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions, unless supplied by a Minister of the Crown or Government department and held in confidence. For an instance of a reserved matter relating to Scotland being covered by FOIA, rather than FOI(S)A, see Scotland Office v IC, IT, 8 August 2008.

140

Scotland Act 1998 s 28(7).

141

Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary Agreements between the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Ministers, the Cabinet of the National Assembly of Wales and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee (Cm 5240, 2001)(UK); SE/2002/54 (Scotland): www.justice.gov.uk/about/docs/odpm-dev-600629.pdf

142

Scotland Act 1998 s 29(2)(a).

143

A separate Code of Practice on Openness existed in relation to information held by the NHS in Scotland (covering Health Boards, NHS Trusts and other NHS organisations).

27

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION be released except where disclosure would not be in the public interest, as specified in Part II of this Code. 2. The aims of the Code are: — to facilitate policy-making and the democratic process by providing access to the facts and analyses which form the basis for the consideration of proposed policy; — to protect the interests of individuals and companies by ensuring that reasons are given for administrative decisions, except where there is statutory authority or established convention to the contrary; and … These aims are balanced by the need: — to maintain high standards of care in ensuring the privacy of personal and commercially confidential information; and — to preserve confidentiality where disclosure would not be in the public interest or would breach personal privacy or the confidences of a third party, in accordance with statutory requirements and Part II of the Code.

Like the Code for England and Wales issued in 1994 and revised in 1997,144 it conferred no enforceable rights. 1– 039 Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 On 24 April 2002 the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 was passed by the Scottish Parliament.145 As noted above, the Act only applies to public authorities that operate purely in or as regards Scotland.146 Westminster-established bodies, government departments, offices and office-holders when operating in Scotland, including what are termed cross-border public authorities,147 are in any event not susceptible to coverage by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.148 Difficult issues arise as to whether some of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 are outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament on the basis that they represent provisions that relate to reserved matters.149 1– 040 Implementation of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 The Act was brought into force incrementally over the course of three years. The initial implementation of the Act brought into force those provisions that specified which bodies were to be subject to the Act, that provided for publication schemes and for the establishment of the Scottish Information Commissioner, and that effected certain amendments to public records 144

See §1– 021.

145

It received Royal Assent on 28 May 2002.

146

These are listed in Sch 1 to the FOI(S)A.

147

Cross-border authorities are listed in the Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Specification) Order 1999 SI 1999/1319. These include the British Waterways Board, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the Meat and Livestock Commission.

148

See §1– 037. When operating in Scotland, these public authorities will be governed by the FOIA.

149

An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law in so far as any provision of it is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament: Scotland Act 1998 s 29(1). A provision will be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it relates to ‘reserved matters’: Scotland Act 1998 s 29(2)(b). Reserved matters are defined in Sch 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Significantly, in light of the exemptions in the FOI(S)A, these include: international relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Communities (and their institutions) and other international organisations; the defence of the realm and the naval, military or air forces of the Crown; data protection; national security, etc; social security; health and safety.

28

SCOTLAND, WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND legislation.150 The remaining provisions for publication schemes, the Scottish Information Commissioner and immunity from suit were brought into force on 31 October 2003.151 The remaining administrative provisions took effect from 30 April 2004.152 Finally, the enforceable right of access was brought into force with effect from 1 January 2005.153 On that same day, the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 came into force. Since that day, various additional Scottish public authorities have been made subject to the Act154 and those that no longer exist have been taken out of the Act. 1– 041 Differences between the two Acts Although closely modelled on the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Scottish Act treats a number of matters differently: (1) The scheme for responses that neither confirm nor deny that the public authority holds information answering the terms of the request. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 spells out a separate duty on a public authority to inform an applicant whether it holds information of the description specified in the request.155 In relation to all but one of the heads of exemption, that duty is disapplied where, or to the extent that, confirming or denying that the public authority holds the requested information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the matter protected by the head of exemption and, if the exemption is a qualified one, to do so would be contrary to the public interest.156 The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 creates no separate duty to confirm or deny that the information requested is held by the public authority. Instead, more elegantly, it provides that a refusal notice must, amongst other things, disclose that the public authority holds the information sought;157 this requirement in relation to a refusal notice is then disapplied where information answering the terms of the request would be exempt under certain exemptions158 and the public authority considers that it would be contrary to the public interest to reveal whether such information exists or is so held.159 (2) To the extent that there is an onus in engaging the public interest override in 150 151

FOI(S)A (Commencement No 1) Order 2002 SSI 2002/437. FOI(S)A (Commencement No 2) Order 2003 SSI 2003/477.

152

FOI(S)A (Commencement No 3) Order 2004 SSI 2004/203.

153

FOI(S)A (Commencement No 3) Order 2004 SSI 2004/203.

154

For example: The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council; Bòrd na Gàidhlig; and community justice authorities.

155

FOIA s 1(1)(a). This is termed ‘the duty to confirm or deny’: s 1(6).

156

FOIA ss 2(1), 22(2), 23(5), 24(2), 26(3), 27(4), 28(3), 29(2), 30(3), 31(3), 32(3), 33(3), 34(2), 35(3), 36(3), 37(2), 38(2), 39(3), 40(5), 41(2), 42(2), 43(3) and 44(2). The sole head of exemption that does not have a disapplication of the duty to confirm or deny is s 21.

157 158

159

FOI(S)A s 16(1)(a). The exemptions to which the duty to confirm or deny is disapplied are more limited than those under the FOIA: namely, ss 28–35, 39 and 41. The Scottish equivalents to the FOIA ss 22, 32, 33, 40, 41, 42 and 44 do not ground a refusal to confirm or deny under the FOI(S)A. FOI(S)A s 18.

29

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION relation to the qualified exemptions, it is reversed. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the duty to disclose exempt information is disapplied where, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.160 Under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, the duty to disclose non-absolute exempt information only applies to the extent that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in disclosing the information is not outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption.161 (3) The harm level required to engage the prejudice-based exemptions is higher under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (‘would or might substantially prejudice’)162 than it is under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘would or might prejudice’).163 In light of the assurances given during the introduction into Parliament of the Freedom of Information Act 2000164 the differences in practice ought to be less significant than the language might suggest. (4) Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, information held by a public authority is absolutely exempt if it was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by one of the security bodies or if it relates to one of the security bodies.165 Moreover, a Minister of the Crown can sign a conclusive certificate certifying that the information to which the certificate applies was directly or indirectly supplied by, or relates to, any of the security bodies.166 In Scotland, there is no such exemption.167 (5) In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, information the disclosure of which would be a breach of parliamentary privilege enjoys an absolute exemption.168 There is no such exemption under the Scottish Act. (6) There are fewer grounds for issuing an exemption conclusive certificate under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002169 than there are under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.170 (7) The preconditions for the issue of a compliance conclusive certificate are more onerous under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 than they are under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In both jurisdictions, where the Information 160

Section 2(2)(b). The effect of this provision is considered further in ch 15.

161

Section 2(1)(b).

162

FOI(S)A ss 27(2), 28(1), 30, 31(4), 32(1), 33(1), 33(2), 35(1) and 40.

163

FOIA ss 26(1), 27(1), 28(1), 29(1), 31(1), 33(2), 36(2), 38(1) and 43(2).

164

See §15– 021.

165

FOIA s 23(1). The security bodies are those listed in s 23(3).

166

FOIA s 23(2). The effect of a conclusive certificate is considered in §14– 039(1).

167

This raises a serious issue in relation to the FOI(S)A. The exemption in the FOIA s 23 does not, of course, operate to render exempt information requested under the FOI(S)A.

168

FOIA s 34(1).

169

The only ground is national security: s 31(2).

170

The grounds are: security body information, s 23(2); national security, s 24(3); parliamentary privilege, s 34(3); and deliberative or cabinet information held by either House of Parliament, s 36(7).

30

SCOTLAND, WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND Commissioner is satisfied that a public authority has failed to comply with any of the requirements of Part I of the Act, he may serve on that public authority an enforcement notice specifying the steps that the public authority must take.171 In both jurisdictions, limited provision172 is made for a high-ranking official to give the Information Commissioner, within a certain time, a certificate that causes the enforcement notice to cease to have effect.173 Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the precondition for the high-ranking official issuing the certificate is that on reasonable grounds he has formed the opinion that, in respect of the request or requests concerned, there was no relevant174 failure to comply with the Act.175 In Scotland, the high-ranking official must also form the opinion that the information requested is of exceptional sensitivity.176 (8) The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 gives no express right of review in relation to the decision to issue a conclusive certificate.177 (9) The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 has no equivalent to s 81(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which treats each government department as a person separate from any other government department. The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 establishes the office of the Scottish Information Commissioner.178 This is independent of the office of the Information Commissioner, who is responsible for policing the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Scottish Information Commissioner does not have responsibility for the enforcement of the Data Protection Act 1998 in Scotland. 1– 042 Environmental information: Scotland In relation to ‘environmental information’, Scottish public authorities are subject to the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004. Apart from their applying to Scottish public authorities, these Regulations are very similar to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 which apply to Westminster public authorities. Both regimes are considered in Chapter 6 of this work.

171

FOIA s 52(1); FOI(S)A s 51(1).

172

Under the FOIA, the power to issue a certificate is confined to where the enforcement notice relates to: (a) a failure to inform an applicant that it holds information of the description specified in the request in circumstances where s 2(1) does not operate to disapply the duty to confirm or deny; (b) a failure to communicate information to an applicant in circumstances where s 2(2) does not operate to disapply the duty to disclose: FOIA s 53(1)(b). In Scotland, the power to issue a certificate is confined to where the enforcement notice relates to a failure to give information to an applicant in circumstances where s 2(1) does not operate to disapply the duty to disclose and the information is exempt information by virtue of s 29, 31(1), 32(1)(b), 34, 36(1) or 41(b): FOI(S)A s 52(1)(b).

173

Under the FOIA, that high-ranking official is the ‘accountable person’ (itself defined in s 53(8)) and the time allowed is 20 working days: s 53(2). In Scotland that high-ranking official is the First Minister of the Scottish Executive and the time allowed is 30 working days: FOI(S)A s 52(2).

174

In other words, a failure of the sort set out in n.172.

175

FOIA s 53(2).

176

FOI(S)A s 52(2).

177

Either on national security or exceptional sensitivity grounds: FOI(S)A ss 31(2) and 52(2).

178

FOI(S)A s 42(1).

31

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION 1– 043 Subject-access requests: Scotland Data protection is a reserved matter and responsibility for enforcement of the Data Protection Act 1998 lies with the Information Commissioner: the Scottish Information Commissioner does not have responsibility for enforcing the Data Protection Act 1998. Thus a request by an individual for information about himself will be exempt under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and is instead to be treated as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998, save to the extent that it also involves the disclosure of personal information about a third party.179 1– 044 Wales Although the Government of Wales Act 1998 created a National Assembly for Wales, it was an administrative body rather than a legislative body. It had no power to make laws with respect to the granting of access to official information. The Government of Wales Act 2006 replaced the National Assembly with the Welsh Assembly Government, but did not alter the position in relation to the making of laws with respect to access rights to official information.180 Accordingly, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies equally to public authorities in Wales as it does to public authorities in England.181 Schedule 1 to the Act, which lists public authorities for the purposes of the Act, includes the National Assembly for Wales, Welsh county councils, borough councils and community councils, health authorities, maintained schools and other educational institutions, police authorities, and various other bodies ranging from the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales to the Welsh Optometric Committee. The National Assembly for Wales has its own Code of Practice on Public Access to Information,182 which, like all such codes,183 does not confer rights but merely states intent. It contemplates a more generous provision of information than the minimum that may be provided under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Since the initial coming into force of the Act, certain public authorities have been removed from its operation.184 1– 045 Northern Ireland The Freedom of Information Act 2000 extends to Northern Ireland185 and specifically captures public authorities whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Northern 179

See ch 5.

180

As is evident from The Freedom of Information (Parliament and National Assembly for Wales) Order 2008 SI 2008 1967. Certain amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 consequential upon the creation of the Welsh Assembly were effected by the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Consequential Modifications and Transitional Provisions) Order 2007 SI 2007/1388 Sch 1 para 80.

181

The only difference is that where the Secretary of State for Justice proposes to add a body or office-holder to the list of public authorities in the Act and that body or office-holder is one whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Wales, he must consult the National Assembly before doing so: FOIA s 4(7). The Secretary of State for Justice is not required to consult where he intends to add a police authority to the list.

182

www.assemblywales.org/abthome/abt-nafw/abt-foi/abt-foi-cop-pub.htm

183

See §10– 008.

184

Freedom of Information (Excluded Welsh Authorities) Order 2002 SI 2002/2832.

185

FOIA s 88(2). The specific reference to Northern Ireland is, strictly speaking, superfluous, but simply accords with a drafting convention.

32

DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1 JANUARY 2005 Ireland and relate only or mainly to transferred matters.186 Schedule 1 to the Act includes the Northern Ireland Assembly, district councils, health and social services boards, schools and universities, the police authority, and various other bodies ranging from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides for Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland Pig Production Development Committee.

8.

DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1 JANUARY 2005

1– 046 Legislative developments The principal changes to the freedom of information regime since 1 January 2005 have been: (1) Numerous additional public authorities have been made subject to the Act.187 (2) (3)

(4)

186

With effect from 18 January 2010, the Information Tribunal ceased to exist and its functions were assumed by the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal.188 The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 extended the types of Royal communications enjoying exemption (s 37(1)) and added those to the list of absolute exemptions. It also reduced from 30 years to 20 years the period after which a record becomes a ‘historical record’ under s 62, with a resultant falling away of exemptions through s 63. At the same time, it removed from that list ss 28 (relations within the United Kingdom), 36 (prejudice to conduct of public affairs), 37(1)(a) (Royal communications) and 43 (prejudice to commercial interests), but restored all but s 37(1)(a) to the 30-year regime. In relation to s 37(1), the period was made into the later of 5 years after the death of the Royal member concerned or 20 years. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 widened the range of publicly owned companies subject to the 2000 Act by including companies owned ‘by the wider public sector’ (s 6). It also allowed an applicant that he or she wanted the information to be communicated electronically in a re-usable form (s 11) and to provide for the imposition of a licence fee in order to re-use copyright material in that information (ss 11A and 11B). Finally, it enabled enhancement of the publication scheme provisions in s 19.

FOIA s 84. ‘Transferred matters’ are defined in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 s 4(1).

187

Most notably, through: Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2002 SI 2002/2623; Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2003 SI 2003/1882; Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2004 SI 2004/938; Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2005 SI 2005/3593; Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2008 SI 2008/1271; Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2010 SI 2010/937; Freedom of Information (Additional Public Authorities) Order 2011 SI 2011/1041. Some public authorities have since been removed from the scope of the Act. See: Freedom of Information (Removal of References to Public Authorities) Order 2003 SI 2003/1883; Freedom of Information (Removal of References to Public Authorities) Order 2004 SI 2004/1641; Freedom of Information (Removal of References to Public Authorities) Order 2005 SI 2005/3594; Freedom of Information (Removal of References to Public Authorities) Order 2010 SI 2010/939; Freedom of Information (Removal of References to Public Authorities) Order 2011 SI 2011/1042 .

188

The changes are considered further at §§27– 013 to 27– 021.

33

CHAPTER 1 — ELICITING OFFICIAL INFORMATION 1– 047 Proposals On 18 December 2006 David Maclean MP introduced a Private Members Bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 so as to remove the House of Commons and the House of Lords as public authorities and to declare as exempt information correspondence between a Member of Parliament and a public authority.189 On 19 January 2007 the Bill received an unopposed second reading in the House of Commons and on 7 February 2007 passed its Public Bill Committee stage. The Bill received backing from the Parliamentary Labour Party’s committee, which urged Labour backbenchers to support it.190 On 18 May 2007 the Bill was passed with a large majority by the House of Commons. However, the Bill did not survive in the House of Lords, with its Select Committee on the Constitution reporting that ‘ the Bill does not meet the requirements of caution and proportionality in enacting legislation of constitutional importance.’191 1– 048 Reviews On 3 July 2012 the House of Commons Justice Select Committee published its first post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.192 It summarised its conclusions: The Freedom of Information Act has been a significant enhancement of our democracy. Overall our witnesses agreed that the Act was working well. The right to access information has improved openness, transparency and accountability. The principal objectives of the Act have therefore been met, but we are not surprised that the unrealistic secondary expectation that the Act would increase public confidence in Government and Parliament has not been met. We do not believe that there has been any general harmful effect at all on the ability to conduct business in the public service, and in our view the additional burdens are outweighed by the benefits. There is some risk-based on perception as much as reality-that policy discussions at the highest levels may be inhibited or not properly recorded because of fear of early disclosure under the Act. This was never intended to be the effect of the Act, and we believe that it can be dealt with by the proper application of the protection provided in section 35 of the Act, firm guidance to senior civil servants about the extent of the protections provided and, where necessary and appropriate, by the use of the ministerial veto to protect the ‘safe space’ for such discussions. We also note that disclosure of such discussions is as likely to occur through major public inquiries or court proceedings as it is under the Freedom of Information Act.193

In relation to openness, it specifically recorded:

We agree with the Ministry of Justice that the Act has contributed to a culture of greater openness across public authorities, particularly at central Government level which was previously highly secretive. We welcome the efforts made by many public officials not only to implement the Act but to work with the spirit of FOI to achieve greater openness. Our evidence shows that the strength of the new culture of openness is, however, variable and

189

The Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2006-07. A copy of the Bill is at:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/039/2007039.pdf

190

See: www.cfoi.org.uk/pdf/PLP.pdf

191

See: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldselect/ldconst/127/127.pdf

192

See: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/96/9602.htm

193

At para 242.

34

DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1 JANUARY 2005 depends on both the type of organisation and the approach to freedom of information of the individual public authority.194

The claimed ‘chilling effect’ of the legislation preoccupied the Select Committee, but its conclusions were tentative: We are not able to conclude, with any certainty, that a chilling effect has resulted from the FOI Act. On the one hand, [University College of London’s] Constitution Unit’s research – the most in- depth available – suggests it has only a marginal effect. On the other hand, a range of distinguished participants who are, or who have been recently, at the heart of the policy-making process attest that it is a problem. We see no reason why former senior ministers and officials in particular would flag this up as a concern if they did not genuinely believe it to be so, and we think their views are of value. However, so too of value is the increased openness introduced by the Act and, especially, the power of individuals to exercise their right to information proactively, rather than having public authorities decide what they will disclose, when and to whom, even when acting with the best intentions. Equally, there are other reasons why some officials and politicians may be increasingly reluctant to create paper records, not least the increasing possibility that some form of public inquiry may lead to the subsequent publication of minutes and records. That is why we are cautious about restricting the rights conferred in the Act in the absence of more substantial evidence. Given the uncertainty of the evidence we do not recommend any major diminution of the openness created by the Freedom of Information Act, but, given the clear intention of Parliament in passing the legislation that it should allow a "safe space" for policy formation and Cabinet discussion, we remind everyone involved in both using and determining that space that the Act was intended to protect high-level policy discussions. We also recognise that the realities of Government mean that the ministerial veto will have to be used from time to time to protect that space.195

1– 049 Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 In January 2012 the Scottish Information submitted his Special Report to the Scottish Parliament.196 This presented a generally positive picture of the operation of the Act, with increasing public awareness of the Act. One concern expressed was the failure to include private organisations which had been contracted to carry out public functions, eg prisons. Following on from his recommendations, the Scottish Parliament enacted the Freedom of Information (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013. This imposed a requirement on the Scottish Ministers to consult before designating a public authority for the purposes of the Act. It also enabled the Scottish Ministers to alter the period after which a record becomes a ‘public record.’

194

Paragraph 17.

195

Paragraphs 200-201.

196

Entitled Informing the Future Laid before Parliament under s 46(3) of FOI(S)A. Available at

www.itspublicknowledge.info/home/SICReports/OtherReports/SpecialReport2012.aspx

35

CHAPTER 2

The Comparative Jurisdictions Chapter 2 – The Comparative Jurisdictions Jennifer Robinson Page 1. INFORMATION RIGHTS LEGISLATION ELSEWHERE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2– 001 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2– 002 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2– 003 Scope of the right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2– 004 Other rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2– 005 The request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2– 006 The response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2– 007 Exemptions generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2– 008 Specific exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2– 009 Appeals and enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2– 010 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2– 011 Scope of the right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2– 012 The request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 2– 013 The response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 2– 014 Exemptions generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2– 015 Specific exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2– 016 Appeals and enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4. NEW ZEALAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 2– 017 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 2– 018 Scope of the right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 2– 019 The request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 2– 020 The response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 2– 021 Exemptions generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 2– 022 The absolute exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 2– 023 The qualified exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 2– 024 Appeals and enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5. CANADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 2– 025 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 2– 026 Scope of the right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 2– 027 The request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 2– 028 The response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 2– 029 Exemptions generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 2– 030 Onus, purpose clause and conclusive certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 2– 031 Mandatory exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 2– 032 Discretionary exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

36

INFORMATION RIGHTS LEGISLATION ELSEWHERE 2– 033 Appeals and enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6. REPUBLIC OF IRELAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 2– 034 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 2– 035 Scope of the right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 2– 036 The request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 2– 037 The response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 2– 038 Exemptions generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 2– 039 Specific exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 2– 040 Appeals and enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

1.

INFORMATION RIGHTS LEGISLATION ELSEWHERE

2– 001 Introduction The enactment of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was preceded by extensive consideration of analogous legislation in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland:1 comparative tables of exemption were prepared; the different types of harm that could engage an exemption were considered; the various approaches to the public interest were analysed; and so forth.2 This is reflected in the final product, whose structure and occasionally language resemble those employed in the legislation of the comparative jurisdictions.3 The divergences are also pointed, with certain features of the comparative regimes having been considered but not adopted. An overview of each of the comparative regimes is given below. After a short history, the principal features of each regime are identified: the scope of the right; the approach to requests and permissible responses; the general treatment of exemptions, including classification by harm and by class; the role of the public interest; the specific heads of exemption; and the system of appeals and enforcement. These reveal certain universal issues, most notably the identification of those legitimate interests of an open, accountable and representative government that have paramountcy over the general right of access to government-held information. Elsewhere in this work, reference is made to authorities in these comparative jurisdictions where it is considered that it sheds light on the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 or the Data Protection Act 1998. 1

Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth of Australia); Official Information Act 1982 (NZ); Access to Information Act (1982) (Canada); Freedom of Information Act 1997 (Ireland). Although it has the most developed body of jurisprudence on the topic, reference to the Freedom of Information Act (1966) 5 USC 552 (USA) was more limited.

2

See: Cabinet Office, Your Right to Know—The Government’s Proposals for a Freedom of Information Act. White Paper (Cm 3818, 1997) paras 3–12, Annexes A and B (see ch 1, n 62); Background Material, paras 33, 56–65, 70–71, 78, 108, 116–117, 125–129, 219. Hansard HC vol 340 cols 722, 728, 741, 746–749, 754, 759–761, 789 (7 December 1999); Hansard HC vol 347 cols 832, 837–839, 848–849, 922–926, 934 (4 April 2000); Hansard HC vol 347 cols 996, 1009, 1028, 1041, 1097, 1103 (5 April 2000); Hansard H vol 612 cols 830, 834, 838–839, 851, 867–868 (20 April 2000); Hansard HL vol 617 cols 888, 893, 939, 941, 946, 1010 (17 October 2000); Hansard HL vol 617 cols 1215, 1256, 1279 (19 October 2000); Hansard HL vol 618 cols 438, 441–442 (25 October 2000); Hansard HL vol 619 col 619 (14 November 2000).

3

Most notably New Zealand and, to a slightly lesser extent, Australia.

37

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS

2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2– 002 Introduction In 1966 the United States Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act.4 It had evolved after a decade of debate among agency officials, legislators and public interest group representatives.5 The Act was not, however, entirely novel. The Administrative Procedure Act of 19646 had included a public disclosure section, although this was thought to have fallen short of its goals. In 1974 significant amendments to the Freedom of Information Act were made7 and the Privacy Act was passed.8 The latter granted individuals enhanced rights of access to agency records maintained about themselves;9 it restricted the rights of agencies to disclose personally identifiable records maintained by an agency; and it granted a right to individuals to seek amendment of agency records maintained on themselves. Further amendments to the Freedom of Information Act were made in 1976, 1986, 1996, 2002 and 2007.10 On 21 January 2009, President Obama signed the ‘Presidential Memorandum for the Heads of Executive 4

5 USC 1002 (1964) (amended in 1966 and now codified at 5 USC 552). The Act took effect on 4 July 1967.

5

The main proponent of the legislation was a Californian Democrat Congressman, John Moss. A Republican Congressman, Donald Rumsfeld, signed as a co-sponsor. He explained the need for the Act: ‘The unanimous action after years of delay results from the growing size and complexity of the federal government, of its increased role in our lives, and from the increasing awareness by Americans of the threat involved in Government secrecy in vital records affecting their fate…With the continuing tendency toward managed news and suppression of public information that the people are entitled to have, the issues have at last been brought home to the public...’ (quoted in The Arizona Republic, 27 June 1966).

6

5 USC 1002. The Freedom of Information Act was in fact a revision of the public disclosure section of this Act.

7

The 1974 amendments considerably narrowed the overall scope of the Act’s law enforcement and national security exemptions. It also broadened many of the Act’s procedural provisions, including fees, time limits, segregability, and in camera inspection by the courts. President Ford vetoed the bill effecting the changes, calling it ‘unconstitutional and unworkable’, but both Houses overrode his veto.

8

5 USC 552a. The Act took effect on 27 September 1975.

9

5 USC 552a(d)(1). There is an overlap between the right of access bestowed by the Freedom of Information Act and that which is granted by the Privacy Act. The latter only applies to requests for personal information relating to the person making the request. Such a request need not state under which statute it is made. The technique is first to consider whether any exemption under the Privacy Act applies: if it does not, then the information must be released irrespective of the applicability of an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act. If an exemption under the Privacy Act does apply, then exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act must be considered: if none applies, the requested information must be released notwithstanding the applicability of an exemption under the Privacy Act: 5 USC 552a(t)(1); Martin v Office of Special Counsel, 819 F 2d 1181 (DC Cir 1987); Savada v Department of Defense, 755 F Supp 6 (DDC 1991); Viotti v United States Air Force, 902 F Supp 1131 (D Colo 1995), affirmed 153 F 3d 730 (10th Cir 1998).

10

The 1976 amendment narrowed the Act’s incorporation of the non-disclosure provisions of other statutes. The Freedom of Information Reform Act (1986) provided broader exemption protection for law enforcement information, special law enforcement record exclusions, and created a new fee and fee waiver structure. The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments (1996) dealt with electronic records, electronic reading rooms, agency backlogs of requests, and other procedural provisions. The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 amended the Act to limit disclosures to foreign governments. The OPEN Government Act of 2007 effected amendments including the definition of news media requesters, the recovery of attorney fees and litigation costs, computing and tolling (or stopping) the time limits for responding to requests and treatment of agency records maintained by government contractors. Smaller changes were also made in 1978 and 1984.

38

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Departments and Agencies on the Freedom of Information Act,’11 which directed all agencies to administer the FOIA with a clear presumption in favour of disclosure, to resolve doubts in favor of openness, and to not withhold information based on ‘speculative or abstract fears.’ In addition, the President called on agencies to ensure that requests are responded to with ‘a spirit of cooperation.’12 In 2011 Congress passed the Faster FOIA Act, which is designed to improve FOIA processing.13 2– 003 Scope of the right Under the Freedom of Information Act, each federal ‘agency’14 is required to make its15 ‘records’16 promptly available to any person17 who makes a proper request for them.18 The 11

Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FreedomofInformationAct/

12

To similar effect, see Attorney General Holder’s Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Concerning the Freedom of Information Act (19 March 2009), available at: www.justice.gov/ag/foia-memo-march2009.pdf. The FOIA Project, a research organization studying the FOIA policy of the Obama administration, has asserted that ‘there is little evidence that these new standards have made any impact on actual Department of Justice practices in defending federal agency withholding’: Defensive Standards Hinder FOIA Openness, the FOIA Project (1 Mar 2012), available at: http://foiaproject.org/2012/03/01/defensive-standards-hinder-foiaopenness/#more-526. One issue has been the alleged use of personal e-mail accounts by agency leaders to avoid FOIA disclosures: Landmark Legal Foundation v EPA, No 12-1726 (DDC 2013).

13

As at the date of writing, the Act awaits Presidential signature.

14

This extends to agencies within the executive branch of the federal Government, including the Executive Office of the President and independent regulatory agencies: 5 USC 552(f)(1). However, the Act does not apply to entities that are not controlled by the federal Government. Thus, organisations which, although having a relationship with the federal Government, are autonomous, are outside the ambit of the Act: Public Citizen Health Research Group v Department of Health, Education & Welfare, 668 F 2d 537 (DC Cir 1981); Irwin Memorial Blood Bank v American National Red Cross, 640 F 2d 1051 (9th Cir 1981); Gilmore v Department of Energy, 4 F Supp 2d 912 (ND Cal 1998). Similarly, state Governments, municipal corporations, the courts, Congress and private citizens are not subject to the Act. Offices within the Executive Office of the President whose functions are limited to advising and assisting the President do not fall within the definition of ‘agency’: Armstrong v Executive Office of the President, 90 F 3d 553 (DC Cir 1996) (National Security Council not an agency); Judicial Watch, Inc v Department of Energy, 412 F 3d 125 (DC Cir 2005) (concluding that the National Energy Policy Development Group was not an agency subject to the Act, because ‘its sole function [was] to advise and assist the President’). The Act does not cover Congressional documents: United We Stand America v Internal Revenue Service, 359 F 3d 595 (DC Cir 2004); Dow Jones & Co v Department of Justice, 917 F 2d 571 (DC Cir 1990).

15

‘Agency records’ are records that are (1) either created or obtained by an agency, and (2) under agency control at the time of the request: Department of Justice v Tax Analysts, 492 US 136 (1989). The OPEN Government Act 2007 made it clear that agency records do not lose their status as such when physically maintained by a government contractor for the purposes of record management. In determining whether an agency has sufficient control over a record in order for it to be an ‘agency record’, there are four factors to be taken into account: (1) the intent of the record’s creator to retain or relinquish control over the record; (2) the ability of the agency to use and dispose of the record as it sees fit; (3) the extent to which agency personnel have read or relied upon the record; and (4) the degree to which the record was integrated into the agency’s record-keeping system or files: Lindsey v Bureau of Prisons, 736 F 2d 1462 (11th Cir 1984); Tax Analysts v Department of Justice, 845 F 2d 1060 (DC Cir 1988), affirmed, 492 US 136 (1989). Personal records which are maintained by agency employees are not considered to be agency records: Bureau of National Affairs Inc v Department of Justice, 742 F 2d 1484 (DC Cir 1984); Spannaus v Department of Justice, 942 F Supp 656 (DDC 1996); Fortson v Harvey, 407 F Supp 2d 13 (DDC 2005).

16

The definition of ‘record’ was widened in 1996: see now 5 USC 552(f)(2). Before the inclusion of that definition, it had been held that ‘records’ did not include tangible, evidentiary objects: Nichols v United States, 325 F Supp 130 (D Kan 1971) (holding that archival exhibits consisting of guns, bullets, and clothing relating to the assassination of President Kennedy were not ‘records’). However, ‘record’ had otherwise been given an expansive meaning to include: ‘machine readable materials...regardless of physical form or characteristics’ (Forsham v Harris 445 US 169 (1980)); an audiotape of Challenger astronauts on the basis that the Act ‘makes no distinction between information in lexical and…non-lexical form’ (NY Times Co v NASA, 920 F 2d 1002 (DC Cir 1990)); and a motion picture film (Save the Dolphins v Department of Commerce, 404 F Supp 407 (ND Cal 1975)). Presidential appointment calendars and

39

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS reason for the making of a request has no bearing on the merits of that request.19 Nor does the initial right of access depend upon the existence or extent of public interest in the records sought.20 The scope of the right was curtailed by an amendment to the Act in 1986 which introduced the concept of ‘exclusions’.21 Three provisions create record ‘exclusions’, the effect of which is to expressly authorise federal law enforcement agencies, in relation to especially sensitive records under certain specified circumstances, to treat the records as not subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 1966.22 The application of one of the three record exclusions results in a response stating that no records responsive to the request exist, even though they may exist. These exclusions do not provide additional bases for an agency to withhold documents from the public: the exclusions only apply to records that are already exempt from disclosure. 2– 004 Other rights The Act does not speak of publication schemes, but contains two analogous provisions giving rise to automatic disclosure of certain agency information. Under the first, each agency is required to publish in the Federal Register certain information relating to itself for ‘the guidance of the public’. This includes a description of the agency’s organisation, functions and

visitor records are not ‘agency records’: Judicial Watch v Secret Service No 11-5282 (DC Cir 2013). 17

‘Any person’ includes foreign citizens, partnerships, corporations, associations, states and state agencies, and foreign or domestic governments: 5 USC 551(2). However, members of foreign legislatures are barred from making FOIA requests, since they are ‘representatives of government entities’: All Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition v Dept of Defense, 851 F Supp 2d 169, 174-177 (DDC 2012). Requests may also be made through an attorney or other representative on behalf of any person: Constangy, Brooks & Smith v National Labor Relations Board, 851 F 2d 839 (6th Cir 1988). However, fugitives may be denied access: Doyle v Department of Justice, 668 F 2d 1365 (DC Cir 1981).

18

5 USC 552(a)(3)(A). Stone v Export-Import Bank of US, 552 F 2d 132 (5th Cir 1977). In 2002 Congress amended the Act to prohibit requests to intelligence agencies from or on behalf of foreign intelligence services, whether friendly or hostile: 5 USC 552(a)(3)(E). ‘Person’ is defined at 5 USC 551(2).

19

Environmental Protection Agency v Mink, 410 US 73 (1973); Department of Justice v Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 US 749 (1989).

20

Jordan v Department of Justice, 591 F 2d 753 (DC Cir 1978). It may, of course, impinge upon the applicability of an exemption.

21

5 USC 552(c).

22

The first exclusion may be used when a request seeks information that is exempt because disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a current law enforcement investigation (ie exemption (7)(A)). There are three specific prerequisites for the application of this exclusion. First, the investigation in question must involve a possible violation of criminal law. Second, there must be reason to believe that the subject of the investigation is not already aware that the investigation is underway. Third, disclosure of the existence of the records, as distinguished from the contents of the records, could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. When all these conditions are satisfied, an agency may respond to a request as if the records were not subject to the requirements of the Act. The second exclusion applies to informant records maintained by a criminal law enforcement agency under the informant’s name or personal identifier. The agency is not required to confirm the existence of these records unless the informant’s status has been officially confirmed. This exclusion helps agencies to protect the identity of confidential informants. The third exclusion only applies to records maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that relate to foreign intelligence, counter-intelligence, or international terrorism. When the existence of these types of records is classified, the FBI may treat the records as not subject to the requirements of the Act. This exclusion does not apply to all classified records on the specific subjects. It only applies when the records are classified and when the existence of the records is also classified.

40

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA procedures; its substantive rules; and statements of general policy.23 This requirement provides the public with automatic access to basic information regarding the transaction of agency business. Under the second, certain types of internal records, such as final agency opinions and orders rendered in the adjudication of cases, specific policy statements, certain administrative staff manuals, and some records previously processed for disclosure under the Act, must be routinely made ‘available for public inspection and copying’.24 This is generally referred to as the ‘reading room’ provision of the Act.25 A failure to comply with these requirements may provide a ground of challenge to an administrative decision that is related to information that ought to have been disclosed.26 The effect of information falling within either provision is that it cannot be made the proper subject of a request under the Freedom of Information Act.27 If an agency does not hold any record that answers the terms of a request, that agency is under no obligation to refer that request to any other agency where such records might be located. The Act contains no procedure entitling or enabling a third party to make representations before information relating to that third party is released to an applicant: this is dealt with, in part, by Executive Order.28 2– 005 The request A request must reasonably describe the records sought and it must be made in accordance with the agency’s published regulations.29 An agency is not required to create a record in order to respond to a request.30 Nor is an agency required to answer a request for future information when it comes into existence.31 However, an agency must undertake a search that is 23

5 USC 552(a)(1).

24

5 USC 552(a)(2). The importance of pro-active disclosure was underscored in President Obama’s 21 January 2009 FOIA Memorandum. The reading rooms must also include information requested under the Act but which the agency considers is likely to be requested by others as well: 5 USC 552(a)(2)(D). The rationale for this is to prevent the development of agency ‘secret law’, known to agency personnel but not to members of the public who deal with agencies. It is for this reason that records that have no precedent value and which do not constitute the working law of an agency are not required to be made available under this part of the Act: National Labor Relations Board v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 421 US 132 at 153–154 (1975); Skelton v United States Postal Service, 678 F 2d 35 at 41 (5th Cir 1982).

25

Some of these records must be made available by agencies in ‘electronic reading rooms’.

26

Checkosky v Securities and Exchange Commission, 23 F 3d 452 (DC Cir 1994); Kennecott Utah Copper Corp v Department of the Interior, 88 F 3d 1191 (DC Cir 1996).

27

5 USC 552(a)(3)(A).

28

A more detailed comparative treatment of third party rights of consultation and of ‘reverse FOI’ is given at §11– 043.

29

5 USC 552(a)(3)(A). The request will ‘reasonably describe’ the records sought if it enables a professional agency employee familiar with the subject area to locate the record with a reasonable amount of effort. The scope of an answer to a FOIA request is limited to requests for records. Agencies do not have an obligation to answer questions posed: Jean-Pierre v BOP, 880 F Supp 2d 95 (DDC 2012), holding that requests for information such as ‘who gave the order’ and ‘on what day’ are not cognizable under FOIA because they ask questions calling for specific pieces of information rather than for records. Similarly, Rodriguez-Cervantes v HHS, 853 F Supp 2d 114 (DDC 2012). Each agency must publish in the Federal Register its procedural regulations governing access to its records under the Act. These regulations must inform the public of where and how to address requests; its schedule of fees for search, review, and duplication; its fee waiver criteria; and its administrative appeal procedures.

30

National Labor Relations Board v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 421 US 132 (1975).

31

Mandel Grunfeld & Herrick v United States Customs Service, 709 F 2d 41 (11th Cir 1983).

41

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS ‘reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents’.32 The Act provides for three levels of fees that may be assessed in response to a request according to categories of applicants.33 2– 006 The response Each agency is required to determine within 20 working days after the receipt of a proper request whether to comply with the request.34 In ‘unusual circumstances’ an agency may have up to 10 days extra to answer.35 The response must include a determination about what will be produced in response to the request.36 The actual disclosure of records answering the terms of the request must follow promptly.37 The agency can refuse to disclose if the applicant refuses to pay any fees.38 An agency may charge an applicant three types of fee: the direct cost to the agency of searching for documents that answer the terms of the request; the direct cost to the agency in reviewing those documents to see what must be released; and duplication costs.39 In permitting an agency to charge fees, the Act distinguishes records ‘sought for commercial uses’, requests made by ‘an educational or non-commercial scientific institution whose purpose is scholarly or scientific research’, requests from the media and requests from others. Provision is made for fee waiver or reductions where disclosure is in the public interest ‘because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester’.40 Disclosure must be in the form requested by the applicant.41 If a request is refused in whole or in part, the agency must tell the applicant the reasons for the refusal.42 The agency must also tell the applicant that there 32

Weisberg v Department of Justice, 705 F 2d 1344 at 1351 (DC Cir 1983). The adequacy of the search will depend upon the specificity of the request. The courts may review the adequacy of the search: Krikorian v Department of State, 984 F 2d 461 (DC Cir 1993).

33

5 USC 552(a)(4)(A)(ii).

34

5 USC 552(a)(6)(A)(i).

35

Defined to mean circumstances in which the agency: (1) needs to search for and collect records from separate offices; (2) needs to examine a voluminous amount of records required by the request; or (3) needs to consult with another agency or agency component: 5 USC 552(a)(6)(B)(iii). The agency is required to notify the applicant whenever an extension is invoked.

36

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v Federal Election Commission, 711 F 3d 180 (DC Cir 2013), holding that otherwise an agency would ‘keep FOIA requests bottled up in limbo for months beyond the statutory deadline’ and form an ‘impermissible Catch-22.’ Not all judicial circuits have followed this approach: Dennis v CIA, 2012 WL 5493377 at *2 (EDNY 2012), stating ‘[An] interim response informing [plaintiff] that [agency] is in the process of addressing [plaintiff’s] inquiry is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that [agency] reply within the statutory time period’; Carson v US Merit Sys Protect Bd, 2012 WL 2562370, *2 (ED Tenn 2012), dismissing complaint that agency response was untimely when agency did not act in bad faith and agency answered request prior to commencement of litigation.

37

5 USC 552(a)(6)(C)(i). To improve FOIA processing speeds, the US Congress approved the ‘Faster FOIA Act 2011.’ This still awaits signature by the President.

38

Trueblood v Department of the Treasury, 943 F Supp 64 (DDC 1996).

39

5 USC 552(a)(4)(A).

40

5 USC 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II). Agencies can provide for the recovery of only the direct costs of search, duplication and review of records answering a request: 5 USC 552(a)(4)(A)(iv). Agencies are required to provide free of charge the first two hours of search time and the first 100 pages of duplication to all non-commercial requesters.

41

Unless it is not readily reproducible in that form or format: 5 USC 552(a)(3)(B).

42

5 USC 552(a)(6)(F).

42

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a right to appeal.43 If an agency fails to make a determination within the time limits, that may be treated as a constructive exhaustion of administrative remedies, entitling the applicant immediately thereafter to seek judicial review.44 Where a record is not wholly comprised of exempt material the agency must, if it is reasonably practicable to do so, release any reasonably segregable portion that is not subject to an exemption.45 The fact that supplying the records in answer to a properly described request would be burdensome does not of itself provide a basis for non-compliance.46 2– 007 Exemptions generally An agency may refuse to disclose an agency record that falls within any of the nine statutory exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act. Generally speaking, the exemptions are discretionary in nature, so that it is open to an agency to grant disclosure to a record for which exemption could be claimed.47 Access to a document that does not qualify as an ‘agency record’ may be refused on the basis that only agency records are available under the Act. Personal notes of agency employees may be refused on this basis. However, most records in the possession of an agency are ‘agency records’ within the meaning of the 1966 Act. 2– 008 Specific exemptions The right of access is disapplied to nine classes of matter: (1) National security information concerning national defence or foreign policy, provided that that information has been classified in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of an executive order.48 The information 43

5 USC 552(a)(6)(A)(i).

44

5 USC 552(a)(6)(C)(i)).

45

5 USC 552(b). The courts will scrutinise decisions to ensure that this obligation has been properly performed: Trans-Pac Policing Agreement v United States Customs Service, 177 F 3d 1022 at 1028 (DC Cir 1999). District courts have broad discretion to determine whether in camera inspection is necessary to evaluate the Government’s claim that non-exempt material cannot be segregated from exempt material. There are limits to the obligation: see, generally: Petroleum Information Corp v Department of the Interior, 976 F 2d 1429 (DC Cir 1992); Krikorian v Department of State, 984 F 2d 461 (DC Cir 1993); Solar Sources Inc v United States, 142 F 3d 1033 (7th Cir 1998); PHE Inc v Department of Justice, 983 F 2d 248 (DC Cir 1993). Thus in Students Against Genocide v Department of State, 257 F 3d 828 at 837 (DC Cir 2001) the court held that an agency is not obliged to segregate and release images from classified photographs by ‘produc[ing] new photographs at a different resolution in order to mask the [classified] capabilities of the reconnaissance systems that took them.’ If, however, an agency determines that non-exempt material is so ‘inextricably intertwined’ that disclosure of it would leave only essentially meaningless words and phrases, the entire record may be withheld: Neufeld v Internal Revenue Service, 646 F 2d 661 at 663 (DC Cir 1981). In Sherman v Department of the Army, 244 F 3d 357 (5th Cir 2001) the court upheld the agency’s decisions to require the requester to pay an estimated $350,000 to $1 million in costs for redacting social security numbers from a database of Vietnam medal awardees.

46

Yeager v Drug Enforcement Administration, 678 F 2d 315 (DC Cir 1982); Ruotolo v Department of Justice, 53 F 3d 4 (2d Cir 1995); Nation Magazine v United States Customs Service, 71 F 3d 885 at 892 (DC Cir 1995).

47

Chrysler Corp v Brown, 441 US 281 (1979); Mobil Oil Corp v Environmental Protection Agency, 879 F 2d 698 (9th Cir 1989); Public Citizen v Department of State, 11 F 3d 198 (DC Cir 1993); Bartholdi Cable Co v Federal Communication Commission, 114 F 3d 274 (DC Cir 1997); Sherman v Department of the Army, 244 F 3d 357 (5th Cir 2001). This was underscored in President Obama’s 21 January 2009 FOIA Memorandum, which called on agencies to ensure that requests are responded to with ‘a spirit of cooperation.’

48

5 USC 552(b)(1). Executive Order 13,526, made 1 January 2010. The Executive Order states that the information may not be considered for classification unless it concerns one of the following categories: military plans, weapons systems, or operations; foreign government information; intelligence activities, sources or methods;

43

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS categories identified as proper bases for classification are: (a) foreign government information;49 (b) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects or plans relating to national security;50 and (c) intelligence activities, sources or materials. This exemption can be used to give a response that neither confirms nor denies the holding of records answering the terms of the request.51 The emergence of national security leaks by organisations like WikiLeaks also poses novel issues for FOIA.52 cryptology; foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources; scientific, technological or economic matters relating to the national security; programmes for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects or plans relating to the national security; or weapons of mass destruction. Additionally, compilations of unclassified information may be classified ‘if the compiled information reveals an additional association or relationship that meets the standards for classification under [Executive Order 13,526’: ACLU v DOJ, 681 F 3d 61 (2d Cir 2012). The Executive Order recognises three basic classifications according to the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected to result from disclosure of the information to which the classification relates: top secret; secret; and confidential. The classification generally lasts for 10 years. 49

Miller v Dept of Justice, 562 F Supp. 2d 82, 102 (DDC 2008) (holding that disclosure of foreign government information would show that government’s cooperation, capabilities and vulnerabilities, and would lead to negative diplomatic consequences and diminished intelligence capabilities); Azmy v Dept of Defense, 562 F Supp 2d 590, 600 (SDNY 2008) (holding that disclosure could be expected to ‘impair [the Department’s] ability to obtain information from foreign governments in the future, who will be less likely to cooperate with the United States if they cannot be confident that the information they provide will remain confidential’).

50

The courts have consistently declined to reject agency assessments of a threat to national security on the basis that they are not equipped to second-guess such assessments: Ray v Turner, 587 F 2d 1187 (DC Cir 1978); Halperin v CIA, 629 F 2d 144 (DC Cir 1980); Goldberg v Department of State, 818 F 2d 71 (DC Cir 1987); Bowers v Department of Justice, 930 F 2d 350 (4th Cir 1991); Young v CIA, 972 F 2d 536 (4th Cir 1992); Students Against Genocide v Department of State, 257 F 3d 828 (DC Cir 2001); American Civil Liberties Union v Department of Justice, 265 F Supp 2d 20 (DDC 2003); National Security Archive Fund, Inc v CIA, 402 F Supp 2d 211 (DDC 2005); Edmonds v US Department of Justice, 405 F Supp 2d 23 (DDC 2005); American Civil Liberties Union v FBI, 429 F Supp 2d 179 (DDC 2006). Agencies, it is thought, have unique insights into such matters: Miller v Department of State, 779 F 2d 1378 (8th Cir 1985); Cozen O'Connor v Dept of Treasury, 570 F Supp 2d 749 (ED Pa 2008); Makky v Chertoff, 489 F Supp 2d 421, 441 (DNJ 2007), affirmed, 541 F 3d 205 (3d Cir 2008); Azmy v Dept of Defense, 562 F Supp 2d 590 (SDNY 2008). Judicial deference to agencies’ say-so on matters of national security has increased: Morley v CIA, 508 F3d 1108, 1124 (DC Cir 2007); Larson v Department of State, 565 F 3d857, 862 (DC Cir 2009) (noting that court need only examine whether agency's classification decision ‘appears “logical” or “plausible”’); Wolf v CIA, 473 F 3d 370, 374-75 (DC Cir 2007); Schoenman v FBI, 575 F Supp 2d 136, 153 (DDC 2008); James Madison Project v CIA, 605 F Supp 2d 99 (DDC 2009); Friedman v Secret Service, 923 F Supp 2d 262 (DDC 2013), observing that courts ‘generally defer to agency expertise in national security matters’; Mobley v CIA, 924 F Supp 2d 24 (DDC 2013) ‘to the extent that plaintiffs ask this Court the judiciary is an extremely poor position to second-guess the executive’s judgment’ on national security. Similarly ACLU v Dept of State, 878 F Supp 2d 215, 222 (DDC 2012); ACLU v Dept of Justice, 681 F 3d 61, 71 (2d Cir 2012). The Executive Order expressly acknowledges the ‘mosaic’ basis for refusal to disclose a record. This has also been recognised in the Courts: Halperin v CIA, 629 F 2d 144 (DC Cir 1980); Edmonds v Department of Justice, 405 F Supp 2d 23 (DDC 2005); American Civil Liberties Union v FBI, 429 F Supp 2d 179 (DDC 2006) and authorities cited at §17– 034(1).

51

This, in the United States, is called a ‘Glomar response’, based on the judgment in Phillippi v CIA, 546 F 2d 1009 (DC Cir 1976); Amnesty International USA v CIA, 728 F Supp 2d 479 (SDNY 2010), holding Glomar response regarding detention and treatment of detainees valid despite existing, limited public disclosures of their treatment, as the existing disclosures do not diminish the potential national security harm from release of information to the public; Electronic Privacy Information Centre v National Security Agency, 678 F 3d 926 (2012), upholding NSA issuance of Glomar response. Similarly Moore v FBI, 883 F Supp 2d 155, 164 (DDC 2012). It is frequently used in conjunction with exemption (1).

52

In general, the existence of leaked documents does not guarantee their accessibility under FOIA. The American Civil Liberties Union brought suit against the Department of Defense, seeking copies of documents leaked by WikiLeaks. The court held that the leaks were ‘no substitute for an official acknowledgment’ and that ‘the

44

(2)

(3)

(4)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Records that are ‘related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency’.53 This covers: (a) internal matters of a relatively trivial nature;54 and (b) more substantial internal matters, the disclosure of which would risk circumvention of a statute or regulation.55 Information prohibited from disclosure by another statute, provided that that statute either requires that the information be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue or that that statute establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of information to be withheld.56 Trade secrets57 and commercial or financial information58 obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential.59 Information may also be withheld if disclosure would be likely to impair the Government’s ability to obtain similar information in

WikiLeaks disclosure is no substitute for an official acknowledgment’: ACLU v Department of State, No 11-01072, 4 (CKK) (DDC 2012). 53

5 USC 552(b)(2). As interpreted by the courts, there are two separate classes of documents that are generally held to fall within the second exemption. First, information relating to personnel rules or internal agency practices is exempt if it is a trivial administrative matter of no genuine public interest. Secondly, an internal administrative manual can be exempt if disclosure would risk circumvention of law or agency regulations. In order to fall into this category, the material will normally have to regulate internal agency conduct rather than public behaviour.

54

Often referred to as ‘low 2’ information. This covers routine internal personnel matters, such as performance standards and leave practices. The rationale for this part of the exemption is that the very task of processing and releasing these sorts of record would place an administrative burden on the agency that would not be justified by any genuine public benefit. The exemption does not apply where there is a genuine and significant public interest in disclosure of the records requested. In relation to the application of this provision: Department of the Air Force v Rose, 425 US 352 (1976); Crooker v Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 670 F 2d 1051 (DC Cir 1981); Dirksen v Department of Health and Human Services, 803 F 2d 1456 (9th Cir 1986); Maricopa Audubon Society v United States Forest Service, 108 F 3d 1082 (9th Cir 1997).

55

Often referred to as ‘high 2’ information. This will extend to guidelines for conducting investigations, information that would reveal the identities of informants or undercover agents, information referring to the security techniques used in prisons, agency testing material, and so forth.

56

5 USC 552(b)(3). In relation to this provision, see: American Jewish Congress v Kreps, 574 F 2d 624 (DC Cir 1978); Hayden v National Security Agency, 608 F 2d 1381 (DC Cir 1979); Halperin v CIA, 629 F 2d 144 (DC Cir 1980); Gardels v CIA, 689 F 2d 1100 (DC Cir 1982); CIA v Sims, 471 US 159 (1985); Cameranesi v Department of Defense, No C 120595 PJH (ND Cal 2013).

57

‘Trade secrets’ has been given a narrower definition than given to it in tort law, so as to be confined to ‘a secret, commercially valuable plan, formula, process, or device that is used for the making, preparing, compounding, or processing of trade commodities and that can be said to be the end product of either innovation or substantial effort.’ Public Citizen Health Research Group v Food and Drug Administration 704 F 2d 1280 (DC Cir 1983). It requires that there be a direct relationship between the trade secret and the production process.

58

Provided that the information relates to business or trade, the courts have generally accepted that it is commercial or financial information: Public Citizen Health Research Group v Food and Drug Administration, 704 F 2d 1280 (DC Cir 1983); Merit Energy Co v Department of the Interior, 180 F Supp 2d 1184 (D Colo 2001). Detailed information on a company’s marketing plans, profits, or costs can qualify as confidential business information.

59

5 USC 552(b)(4). In relation to confidentiality, a distinction is made between information submitted pursuant to obligation and information voluntarily submitted. In the former case, information is confidential for purposes of the exemption if disclosure of the information is likely to have either of the following effects: (1) to impair the Government’s ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or (2) to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained: National Parks & Conservation Association v Morton, 498 F 2d 765 (DC Cir 1974). In the case of voluntarily submitted information, it is protected from disclosure provided it is not customarily disclosed to the public by the third party: Critical Mass Energy Project v Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 975 F 2d 871 (DC Cir 1992).

45

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS the future.60 Only information obtained from a person other than a government agency qualifies under this exemption: information that an agency created on its own cannot normally be withheld under this exemption.61 The provision protects the interests of both the Government and those who submit information to it.62 (5) Inter-agency or intra-agency63 memoranda or letters ‘which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency’.64 This has been interpreted to mean records that would normally be privileged in civil proceedings.65 These privileges are broader than those that are enjoyed by a public authority in the United Kingdom, and include: (a) deliberative process privilege, also known as ‘executive privilege’;66 (b) attorney work-product privilege;67 and (c) attorney-client privilege.68 The exemption will be unavailable where the privilege 60

The Courts have drawn a sharp distinction between instances where a person has submitted information to an agency under compulsion and those cases where it has been volunteered to the agency: Critical Mass Energy Project v Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 975 F 2d 871 (DC Cir 1992); Center for Auto Safety v National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 244 F 3d 144 (DC Cir 2001). The impairment must be significant: Washington Post v Department of Health and Human Services, 690 F 2d 252 (DC Cir 1982).

61

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp v Renegotiation Board, 425 F 2d 578 (DC Cir, 1970).

62

Although there is no formal requirement under the Act to do so, agencies will generally notify the person who submitted the business information that disclosure of the information is being considered.

63

These terms are not rigidly exclusive and can include some records generated outside an agency: Department of the Interior v Klamath Water Users Protective Association, 532 US 1 (2001); Center for International Environmental Law v Office of US Trade Representative, 237 F Supp 2d 17 (DDC 2002).

64

5 USC 552(b)(5).

65

National Labor Relations Board v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 421 US 132 (1975); Federal Trade Commission v Grolier Inc, 462 US 19 (1983).

66

The protection of records revealing the deliberative policymaking process of government is said to be founded upon three policy considerations: (1) the encouragement of open, frank discussions on matters of policy between subordinates and superiors; (2) the protection against premature disclosure of proposed policies before they are finally adopted; and (3) the protection against public confusion that might result from disclosure of reasons and rationales that were not in fact ultimately the grounds for an agency’s action: Coastal States Gas Corp v Department of Energy, 617 F 2d 854 (DC Cir 1980); Russell v Department of the Air Force, 682 F 2d 1045 (DC Cir 1982); Heggestad v Department of Justice, 182 F Supp 2d 1 (DDC 2000); Kidd v Dept of Justice, 362 F Supp 2d 291, 296 (DDC 2005) (protecting documents on basis that disclosure would ‘inhibit drafters from freely exchanging ideas, language choice, and comments in drafting documents’). In order to rely on the exemption, there are two requirements. First, the record must predate the decision to which it relates: National Labor Relations Board v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 421 US 132 (1975); Access Reports v Department of Justice, 926 F 2d 1192 (DC Cir 1991). Determining this is not always an easy task and there is much authority on the point. Secondly, the record must be a direct part of the deliberative process, in that it makes recommendations and expresses opinions on legal or policy matters: Vaughn v Rosen, 523 F 2d 1136 (DC Cir 1975). This second requirement excludes factual material: Coastal States Gas Corp v Department of Energy, 617 F 2d 854 (DC Cir 1980). The provision has been generously interpreted: Coastal States Gas Corp v Department of the Environment, 617 F 2d 854 (DC Cir 1980); Skelton v United States Postal Service, 678 F 2d 35 (5th Cir 1982); Afshar v Department of State, 702 F 2d 1125 (DC Cir 1983); Access Reports v Department of Justice, 926 F 2d 1192 (DC Cir 1991); Wolfe v Department of Health and Human Services, 839 F 2d 768 (DC Cir 1988); Mapother v Dept of Justice, 3 F 3d 1533 (DC Cir 1993). The courts have recognised that there is no straightforward dichotomy between deliberative material and factual material.

67

In other words, material prepared by a lawyer in contemplation of litigation. The privilege arises if litigation is probable: Schiller v National Labor Relations Board, 964 F 2d 1205 (DC Cir 1992). Privilege attaches provided that litigation was the primary factor in the decision to create the document: Maine v Department of the Interior, 285 F 3d 126 (1st Cir 2002).

68

In other words, confidential communications between a lawyer and his client relating to a legal matter for which the client has sought professional advice: Mead Data Central Inc v Department of the Air Force, 566 F 2d 242 (DC Cir 1977).

46

(6) (7)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has been waived by disclosure to third parties or non-federal agencies.69 Information about individuals70 in ‘personnel and medical files and similar files’,71 provided that the disclosure of that information ‘would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy’.72 Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes.73 In order to engage the exemption it must also be shown that one or more of six types of harm would flow from the disclosure of such records or information: (A) The production of such records or information could reasonably be expected74 to interfere with enforcement proceedings.75

69

Chilivis v Security & Exchange Commission, 673 F 2d 1205 (11th Cir 1982); Rockwell International v Department of Justice, 235 F 3d 598 (DC Cir 2001).

70

The exemption requires that the record relate to an identifiable specific individual, and not merely a large class of unidentified individuals: Arieff v Department of the Navy, 712 F 2d 1462 (DC Cir 1983). It would seem that deceased individuals do not have privacy interests: Na Iwi O Na Kupuna O Makapu v Dalton, 894 F Supp 1397 (D Haw 1995).

71

The words ‘similar files’ have been construed to mean all information that ‘applies to a particular individual’: Department of State v Washington Post Co, 456 US 595 (1982); Sherman v Department of the Army, 244 F 3d 357 (5th Cir 2001).

72

5 USC 552(b)(6). The last words import into the exemption a requirement to balance the public’s right to disclosure against the individual’s right to privacy: Department of the Air Force v Rose, 425 US 352 (1976). The words ‘clearly warranted’ have been interpreted to mean that information falling within the opening words of the exemption will nevertheless not enjoy exemption under it except where there is a clearly demonstrable unwarranted invasion of privacy: Getman v National Labor Relations Board, 450 F 2d 670 (DC Cir 1971); Avondale Industries Inc v National Labor Relations Board, 90 F 3d 955 (5th Cir 1996). If it is shown that a protectable privacy interest would be threatened by disclosure of the record, the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against the privacy interest in non-disclosure. As to the manner in which this task is to be carried out, see: Department of Justice v Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 US 749 (1989); Department of State v Ray, 502 US 164 (1991); Department of Defense v FLRA, 510 US 487 (1994) . As to what are protectable privacy interests, see: Core v United States Postal Service, 730 F 2d 946 (4th Cir 1984); Nation Magazine v United States Customs Service, 71 F 3d 885 (DC Cir 1995). The right to privacy of a public figure is a diluted one: Fund for Constitutional Government v National Archives & Records Service, 656 F 2d 856 (DC Cir 1981). The privacy interests of a public official are not as strong as those of a private citizen: Lissner v Customs Service, 241 F 3d 1220 (9th Cir 2001). While personal privacy normally concluded upon the death of the person to whom the information relates, relatives of the deceased may continue to have a privacy interest in the non-disclosure of information relating to the deceased: National Archives & Records Administration v Favish, 541 US 157 (2004). The onus is on the applicant to show that disclosure would be in the public interest of shedding light on an agency’s performance of its statutory duties.

73

The exemption has, by amendments in 1974 and 1986, been broadened in its scope. The phrase ‘law enforcement purposes’ has been given a broad interpretation, to include the enforcement of state laws and of foreign laws: Bevis v Department of State, 801 F 2d 1386 (DC Cir 1986). Information not initially obtained or generated for law enforcement purposes may still qualify under this exemption if it is subsequently compiled for a valid law enforcement purpose at any time prior to invocation of the exemption: John Doe Agency v John Doe Corp, 493 US 146 (1989). A particularly generous application of the provision is allowed for criminal law enforcement agencies, although this tends to vary with circuit. The exemption does not apply to information compiled in an agency’s general internal monitoring of its own employees to ensure compliance with its own procedures.

74

The 1986 amendment changed the required likelihood of harm from ‘would interfere with’ to ‘could reasonably be expected to interfere with’, thereby widening the scope of the exemption.

75

The protection afforded by the exemption only endures for so long as proceedings are pending or prospective: National Labor Relations Board v Robbins Tire & Rubber Co, 437 US 214 (1978). The types of harm which the courts have found might result from disclosure sufficient to engage the exemption include witness intimidation, fabrication of evidence, evasion of detection, premature revelation of evidence and revelation of strategies. A ‘chilling’ of witnesses will suffice: Solar Sources Inc v United States, 142 F 3d 1033 (7th Cir 1998). Recently the Courts have carried over into exemption (7)(A) the notions of deference conventionally reserved for assessments of national security: ‘just as we have deferred to the executive when it invokes Exemption 1 and 3, we owe the same deference under Exemption 7(A) in appropriate cases, such as this one.’ Center for National Security Studies v Department of Justice, 331 F 3d 918 (DC Cir 2003).

47

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS (B) The production of such records or information would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication.76 (C) The production of such records or information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.77 (D) The production of such records or information could reasonably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential source.78 (E) The production of such records or information would reveal techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, provided that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.79 (F) The production of such records or information could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.80 (8) Matters that are contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions.81 (9) Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.82

76

This exemption is rarely used, with agencies generally relying on (7)(A) instead. The only authority on it is Washington Post v Department of Justice, 863 F 2d 96 (DC Cir 1988).

77

Although there is an overlap between this exemption and exemption (6), the standard for engagement is different. Exemption (7)(C) protects against an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, whereas exemption (6) protects against a clearly unwarranted invasion; exemption 7(C) allows the withholding of information that ‘could reasonably be expected to’ invade someone’s privacy, whereas under exemption 6 information can be withheld only if disclosure ‘would’ invade someone’s privacy. The exemption is given a generous interpretation: Department of Justice v Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 US 749 (1989); SafeCard Services v US Securities and Exchange Commission, 926 F 2d 1197 (DC Cir 1991). It can also be relied upon to protect relatives of the person to whom the information relates: National Archives & Records Administration v Favish, 541 US 157 (2004).

78

A confidential source can include a state, local, or foreign agency or authority, or a private institution that furnished information on a confidential basis. In addition, the exemption protects information furnished by a confidential source if the data was compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority during a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation. The courts have stated that the exemption must be given a ‘robust’ application in order to protect such sources of information: Brant Construction Co v Environmental Protection Agency, 778 F 2d 1258 (7th Cir 1985). What matters is not the nature of the information itself but the source of that information: Department of Justice v Landano, 508 US 165 (1993).

79

This only applies to techniques generally unknown to the public, and will not cover matters such as wire-tapping, eavesdropping, covert photography and so forth: Albuquerque Publishing Co v Department of Justice, 726 F Supp 851 (DDC 1989); Jaffe v CIA, 573 F Supp 377 (DDC 1983).

80

This has been interpreted as giving a very wide protection from disclosure of those involved in law enforcement: Spirko v United States Postal Service, 147 F 3d 992 (DC Cir 1998); Rugiero v Department of Justice, 257 F 3d 534 (6th Cir 2001).

81

5 USC 552(b)(8). This has been given a generous interpretation: Gregory v Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, 631 F 2d 896 (DC Cir 1980); Public Citizen v Farm Credit Administration, 938 F 2d 290 (DC Cir 1991). The provision has been said to have two purposes underlying it: (1) to protect the security of financial institutions by withholding from the public reports that contain frank evaluations of a bank’s stability; and (2) to promote co-operation and communication between employees and examiners: Berliner, Zisser, Walter & Gallegos v Securities and Exchange Commission, 962 F Supp 1348 (D Colo 1997).

82

5 USC 552(b)(9). This exemption is rarely used.

48

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2– 009 Appeals and enforcement An applicant has the right to an internal appeal on a merit basis against any adverse determination made by an agency.83 If the agency upholds the decision, it must inform the applicant of its reasons and of the applicant’s right of review in the federal courts.84 Exclusive jurisdiction in relation to decisions under the Freedom of Information Act is vested in the United States district courts.85 Before a district court will interfere with an agency’s decision, the applicant must show that the agency has improperly withheld agency records.86 In effect this means judges determine the propriety of agency withholdings de novo, with agencies bearing the burden of proof in defending the non-disclosure of records.87 Agencies are required to prepare an index supported by an affidavit that itemises each withheld document (whether in whole or in part), identifying on a document-by-document basis the specific exemption relied upon and the facts and matters relied upon by the agency to justify non-disclosure.88 Although the index will often comprise the only evidence produced by the agency, it may be supplemented or displaced by the court’s in camera inspection of the requested documents.89 If the court finds that an exemption does apply, it has no inherent or equitable power to order disclosure.90 The court is empowered to consider the adequacy of the search made by an 83

5 USC 552(a)(6)(A). The request must be answered within 20 working days: 5 USC 552(a)(6)(A)(i).

84

5 USC 552(a)(6)(A). Unless there has been no response within the 20 working day limit to a properly made request, the internal review (known as the ‘administrative remedy’) must be exhausted before applying to the Court: Taylor v Appleton, 30 F 3d 1365 at 1367 (11th Cir 1994); Pollack v Department of Justice, 49 F 3d 115 at 118 (4th Cir 1995). If, after the 20 working days but before a District Court suit is filed, the agency responds to the request, then the administrative remedy must be exhausted before applying to the court: Oglesby v Department of the Army, 920 F 2d 57 at 61 (DC Cir 1990).

85

5 USC 552(a)(4)(B).

86

Kissinger v Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 US 136 at 150 (1980).

87

5 USC 552(a)(4)(B); Natural Resources Defense Council v Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 216 F 3d 1180 (DC Cir 2000). Although normally appeals are determined on a document-by-document basis, under certain circumstances courts have approved withholdings of entire, but discrete, categories of records which encompass all documents having similar contents: National Labor Relations Board v Robbins Tire & Rubber Co, 437 US 214 (1978). Before the court, the agency is not precluded from seeking to rely on an exemption that it did not rely upon at the administrative stage: Young v CIA, 972 F 2d 536 (4th Cir 1992). As to waiver of exemptions, see: North Dakota ex rel Olson v Department of the Interior, 581 F 2d 177 (8th Cir 1978); Mobil Oil Corp v Environmental Protection Agency, 879 F 2d 698 (9th Cir 1989); Public Citizen v Department of State, 11 F 3d 198 (DC Cir 1993); Maydak v Department of Justice, 218 F 3d 760 (DC Cir 2000).

88

This document is generally called the ‘Vaughn Index’ after the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Vaughn v Rosen, 484 F 2d 820 (1973). The index is required to be sufficiently detailed to enable the court to make a reasoned independent assessment of the claim of exemption. It must also be sufficiently specific to justify non-disclosure of the whole document, as opposed to just part of it: Judicial Watch v Department of Health and Human Services, 27 F Supp 2d 240 (DDC 1998); Animal Legal Defense Fund Inc v Department of the Air Force, 44 F Supp 2d 295 (DDC 1999). Where the documents are voluminous, a Vaughn Index may be prepared on the basis of representative samples: Fensterwald v CIA, 443 F Supp 667 (DDC 1977); Weisberg v Department of Justice, 745 F 2d 1476 (DC Cir 1984); Bonner v Department of State, 928 F 2d 1148 (DC Cir 1991); Campaign for Responsible Transplantation v FDA, 180 F Supp 2d 29 (DDC 2001).

89

Sometimes the Vaughn Index (because it is available to the applicant) will include less detail than is necessary to make good the claim for exemption, with the agency relying instead on an in camera inspection of the records sought: Simon v Department of Justice, 980 F 2d 782 (DC Cir 1992); Department of Justice v Landano, 508 US 165 (1993); Maynard v CIA, 986 F 2d 547 (1st Cir 1993); Quiñon v FBI, 86 F 3d 198 (DC Cir 1993); Fiduccia v Department of Justice, 185 F 3d 1035 (9th Cir 1999).

90

Spurlock v FBI, 69 F 3d 1010 (9th Cir 1995).

49

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS agency.91 Appeals from the district courts are heard in the Court of Appeals. Third parties may bring proceedings to prevent an agency from disclosing records under the Act.92

3.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

2– 010 Introduction In 1982 the Federal Parliament of Australia passed the Freedom of Information Act 1982.93 It was the first such piece of legislation in a Westminster system of government. The origin of the Act lay in a report of an inter-departmental committee tabled in the Federal Parliament in November 1976. The first Bill was introduced into the Senate by the Attorney-General in June 1978. That was referred to various committees and inquiries before taking its final form. Since its enactment, the Act has been significantly amended on five occasions,94 most substantially in 2010.95 The 2010 amendments saw the removal of conclusive certificates but, at the same time, the removal of a significant number of agencies from the operation of the Act, either entirely or in relation to certain functions.96 The 2010 amendments also saw the introduction of an information publication scheme for agencies subject to the Act. The scheme commenced on 1 May 2011 and requires agencies to publish a plan showing how they will comply with the scheme requirements, publish specific categories of information and consider proactively publishing other government information.

91

The agency must show that it made ‘a good-faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested’: Weisberg v Department of Justice, 745 F 2d 1476 (DC Cir 1984); Truitt v Department of State, 897 F 2d 540 (DC Cir 1990); Oglesby v Department of the Army, 920 F 2d 57 (DC Cir 1990); Campbell v Department of Justice, 164 F 3d 20 (DC Cir 1998); Rugiero v Department of Justice, 257 F 3d 534 (6th Cir 2001). The court may use its powers to order discovery as part of the process: Weisberg v Department of Justice, 627 F 2d 365 (DC Cir 1980).

92

These proceedings themselves are not based upon The Freedom of Information Act but upon the Administrative Procedures Act (5 USC 701–706): Chrysler Corp v Brown, 441 US 281 (1979). As to reverse FOI generally, see: CNA Finance Corp v Donovan, 830 F 2d 1132 (DC Cir 1987); McDonnell Douglas Corp v NASA, 180 F 3d 303 (DC Cir 1999); Campaign for Family Farms v Glickman, 200 F 3d 1180 (8th Cir 2000); McDonnell Douglas Corp v Department of the Air Force, 375 F 3d 1182 (DC Cir 2004).

93

Since then each of the six states and one of the two internal territories has passed similar legislation: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic); Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT); Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 and, prior to that, the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW); Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA); Right to Information Act 2009 and, prior to that, the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (Tas); Right to Information Act 2009 and, prior to that, Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld); Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA).

94

By the Freedom of Information Amendment Act 1983, the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Act 1986, the Freedom of Information Amendment Act 1991, the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Act 2009, and the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Act 2010. The last is complemented by the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010.

95

The 2010 amendments followed the report of the Administrative Law Review Council, Open Government: A Review of the Federal Freedom of Information Act 1982, ALRC Report No 77 (1996). A copy is available at: www.alrc.gov.au/report-77

96

50

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 7 and Sch 2.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 2– 011 Scope of the right Section 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 gives every person97 a legally enforceable98 right to obtain access in accordance with the Act to a ‘document’99 of an ‘agency’100 and to an ‘official document’101 of a Minister, other than an ‘exempt document’. The phrase ‘exempt document’ is defined102 to mean: (1) A document that falls within one of the specific exemptions in Part IV of the Act;103 (2) A document that is held by or received from one of the bodies that is exempted from the operation of the Act;104 and (3) An official document of a Minister that contains some matter that does not relate to the affairs of an agency. 97

This has been held to extend to a foreign corporation: Re Lordsvale Finance Ltd and Department of the Treasury (1985) 3 AAR 301, AAT. And to convicted felons: Re Ward and Secretary, Department of Industry and Commerce (1983) 8 ALD 324. But in Victoria, not to a severely mentally retarded person: Wallace v Health Commission of Victoria [1985] VR 403. It refers to a single person, so that a firm cannot apply in its own name: CKI Transmission Finance (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Taxation Office (2011) 123 ALD 378; Re Apache Energy Pty Ltd and National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (2012) 57 AAR 123.

98

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 11A.

99

Document is defined broadly to include not only paper records but any other information which is capable of being reduced to written or visual form and which is capable of reproduction in that form: Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 4(1). There is a specific provision in relation to computer-based information: Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 17. Apart from this, however, the Act does not require the generation of documents in order to answer a request: Re Redfern and the University of Canberra (1995) 38 ALD 457. It has been held that the Act does not extend to permit requests for documents that are received or created by the agency after the date of the request: Re Edelsten and Australian Federal Police (1985) 4 AAR 220 at 225, 9 ALN N65; Re Lobo and Department of Immigration (2011) 56 AAR 1. But the reviewing Tribunal can make a decision with respect to documents that have come into existence after the date of the request for access in certain circumstances: Murtagh v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 54 ALR 313.

100

‘Agency’ is defined to mean principally a Department of State of the Commonwealth and a prescribed authority (itself defined to mean a body corporate or unincorporated established by statute for a public purpose, a statutory office-holder and other bodies declared to be agencies): Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 4(1). A court is not an agency, except for documents that relate to matters of an administrative nature: Bienstein v Family Court of Australia [2008] FCA 1138. ‘Document of an agency’ is itself defined to mean a document in the possession of the agency, whether created in the agency or received in the agency: Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 4(1) and see: Loughnan (Principal Registrar, Family Court of Australia) v Altman (1992) 111 ALR 445; Re Sullivan and Department of Industry, Science and Technology (1996) 23 AAR 59 (in relation to custody of a document); Beesley v Australian Federal Police [2001] FCA 836 (importing notions of constructive possession). Personal documents can become documents of an agency: Re Barkhordar and Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority (1987) 12 ALD 332.

101

Defined to mean a document that is in the possession of a Minister in his capacity as a Minister, being a document that relates to the affairs of an agency or of a Department of State: Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 4(1). The effect of the definition is to exclude from the Act those documents which the Minister holds in a political, party or personal capacity. A document held by a Member of Parliament in his representative capacity does not become an official document of a Minister because the Member is, incidentally, a Minister. In relation to the Victorian equivalent, see Birrell v Department of Premier and Cabinet [1988] VR 73. The definition expressly excludes library material maintained for reference purposes and Cabinet notebooks.

102

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 4(1).

103

As to which, see §2– 015.

104

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 7. The bodies listed in Sch 2 to the Act are exempted from the operation of the Act. Documents emanating from security bodies, being the bodies listed in s 7(2A), render the agency holding the documents exempt from the Act so far as those documents are concerned: Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 7(2A). A minister is similarly exempt from the operation of the Act in relation to a document that has originated with or has been received from any of the security bodies: s 7(2B).

51

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS The right of access does not extend to documents that are publicly available independently of the Act,105 to certain excluded bodies,106 or to certain library, archive or museum collections.107 An applicant is not required to demonstrate a need to know in order to exercise the general right of access.108 The Act requires agencies to advise and assist those seeking to use its provisions.109 The Act expressly encourages alternative access.110 2– 012 The request A request must be in writing and must be sufficiently specific that the agency can identify the documents answering its terms.111 If the request is made to the wrong agency, the recipient agency must direct the applicant to the correct agency.112 Where an agency receives a request but does not hold the documents sought but either knows that another agency does or that the subject matter of the request is more closely connected with another agency, then the former agency may transfer the request to the latter agency.113 2– 013 The response The agency can refuse a request if there is a ‘practical refusal reason’, such as that dealing with it would involve an unreasonable diversion of the agency’s resources114 or the documents cannot be found, do not exist or have not been received.115 The request must be answered within 30 days, but there is power to extend that by a further 30 days.116 Provided that it is reasonably 105

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 12(1).

106

Certain bodies are wholly excluded and others are excluded only in relation to certain classes of documents: Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 5, 6A, 7 and Sch 2. See further: Kline v Official Secretary to the Governor-General (2012) 295 ALR 398.

107

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 13. The right of access to information officially held in the archives collection is dealt with under the Archives Act 1983.

108

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 11(2). The Act can thus be used to achieve the same results as a subpoena duces tecum or discovery: Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd (2000) 98 FCR 311.

109

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 15(3)–(4).

110

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 3A

111

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 15(2). The Tribunal has been reluctant to find that anything purporting to be a request is not a request: Re Russell Island Development Association Inc and Department of Primary Industries and Energy (1994) 33 ALD 683 at 692; Re Redfern and University of Canberra (1995) 38 ALD 457; Re Collie and Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1997) 45 ALD 556 at 561.

112

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 15(4).

113

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 16. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal does not have a general power to look behind a decision to transfer a request: Re Reith and Minister of State for Aboriginal Affairs (1988) 14 ALD 430.

114

Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 24, 24AA, 24AB. In relation to the use of multiple requests to evade the Victorian version of this provision, see: Secretary, Department of Treasury and Finance v Kelly [2001] VSCA 246. In addition, s 17(2) relates to the unreasonable diversion of resources with respect to electronic materials: see Collection Point Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] 212 FCR 184.

115

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 24A. It is not for a court to say whether or not reasonable steps have been taken or if the agency is satisfied that the documents cannot be found: Hamden v Campbell (No 2) (2012) 57 AAR 189; Chu v Telstra Corporation (2005) 147 FCR 505.

116

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 15(5). If not made within this time, it is deemed to constitute a refusal: Bienstein v Attorney General [2009] FCA 1501, Bienstein v Attorney-General [2010] FCAFC 45 and now s 15AC. Extra time is allowed for voluminous requests: s 15AB. Section 15AA deals with extension of time by agreement.

52

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA practicable, access must be given in the form sought by the applicant.117 The agency may charge fees for dealing with the request, which must be paid in order to give rise to the obligation to disclose.118 In the event of the agency refusing to disclose, whether in whole or in part, it must give reasons for the refusal.119 In certain cases, the Act permits an agency neither to confirm nor deny the existence of a document.120 The Act specifically provides for discretionary disclosure121 and, in relation to certain exemptions, for third parties to be invited to make representations before a decision is made to release documents.122 2– 014 Exemptions generally Once a valid request has been made and appropriate charges are paid, a document that is subject to the Act must be disclosed: the only legal reason for not complying with this obligation is that the document is exempt.123 The onus of proving that a document is exempt lies with the agency.124 Resulting from its amendment in 2010, the Act divides exemptions into those that render a document unconditionally exempt125 and those that render a document conditionally exempt.126 Access need not be given to a document that is unconditionally exempt. Access must be given to a conditionally exempt document unless that would be contrary to the public 117

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 20.

118

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 29. The charges regime is set out in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Charges) Regulations 1982. Charges may be remitted or reduced, and there is an appeal process: s 29(4)-(11).

119

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 26. Global responses can be given: Day v Collector of Customs (1995) 130 ALR 106.

120

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 25. The Act uses the device of a notional document containing information as to the existence of documents answering the terms of the request. If that notional document would itself be an exempt document under s 33 (national security, defence and international relations), s 33A (Commonwealth/State relations) or s 37 (law enforcement), then the agency is not required to confirm or deny the existence of the actual documents. The Tribunal and Courts have not readily accepted agency claims based on this section: Department of Community Services v Jephcott (1987) 15 FCR 122. More recently, the Federal Court has held that, notwithstanding s 25, in a notice issued under s 26(1) the agency can deny the existence of any document covered by Part IV of the Act: Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing v iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd (2010) 191 FCR 573.

121

Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 14 and 18(2). This does not enable the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to grant discretionary disclosure: Re Waterford and Department of Health (1983) 5 ALN N139; Re Waterford and Department of Treasury (1983) 5 ALD 193. It has been held that a discretionary disclosure cannot give rise to an estoppel in relation to the subsequent invocation of an exemption in relation to like documents: Re Lordsvale Finance Ltd and Department of Treasury (1985) 3 AAR 301.

122

Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 26A (documents containing information that originated from a state), 27 (documents containing business information) and 27A (documents containing personal information). These provisions enable the third party to rely upon an exemption that is not sought to be engaged by the agency: Re Parisi and Australian Federal Police (1987) 14 ALD 11 at 15. However, the process need not be gone through if the agency is proposing to refuse access: Motor Trades Association of Australia v Trade Practices Commission (1993) ATPR 41–201 at 40–821. The pre-2010 amendment procedure was considered in Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v Department of Transport (1986) 12 FCR 156, 68 ALR 626, where it was held that the reviewing Tribunal could, at the request of a third party, determine that a document treated by the agency as not exempt was exempt under s 43. A more detailed comparative treatment of third party rights of consultation and of ‘reverse FOI’ is given at §11– 043.

123

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 11A.

124

Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 55D and 61(1).

125

Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 33-47A.

126

Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 47B-47J.

53

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS interest.127 The Act spells out the public interest factors, including matters that are not relevant.128 Although the Act always had a purpose clause, it was significantly strengthened by the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Act 2010.129 Exemptions in Part IV of the 1982 Act are either class-based or require that a particular harm would or would be likely to result from disclosure of the document. The measure of likelihood employed for the harmbased exemptions is that disclosure ‘would, or could reasonably be expected’, to cause the identified harm.130 The level or type of harm required in order to engage the harm-based exemptions varies: ‘caus[ing] damage’; having ‘a substantial adverse effect’; ‘caus[ing] prejudice’; ‘destroy or diminish’; being ‘unreasonable disclosure’; ‘unreasonably affect’; and ‘likely to unreasonably expose to disadvantage.’ Until removed in 2009, in relation to certain exemptions, a conclusive certificate could be issued where the relevant Minister had been satisfied that a document should not be disclosed.131 The Act provides for severance of exempt material from a document that generally answers the terms of a request.132 In certain circumstances, third parties are given rights to be informed that a request for access to documents has been made and to make submissions that access ought to be refused.133 If, despite the representations of the third party, the agency decides that it will release the 127

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 11A(5).

128

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 11B.

129

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 3. Under the earlier purpose clause, the courts had declined to interpret the exemptions by subject to any special restrictive presumptions: News Corp Ltd v National Companies and Securities Commission (1984) 1 FCR 64, 52 ALR 27; Arnold v Queensland (1987) 73 ALR 607; Searle Australia Pty Ltd v Public Interest Advocacy Centre (1992) 36 FCR 111, 108 ALR 163. In relation to the Victorian legislation, a contrary view had been taken by the High Court: Public Service Board v Wright (1986) 160 CLR 145 at 153–154. As to the new purpose clause, see Re CKI Transmission Finance and Australian Taxation Office (2011) 85 ATR 337.

130

Employed in Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 33(1), 37(1), 47(1), 47B, 47E and 47G. The Tribunal and Courts have interpreted this as being something more than fanciful but which need not be more likely than not: News Corp Ltd v National Companies and Securities Commission (1984) 57 ALR 550; Attorney-General’s Department v Cockroft (1986) 10 FCR 180 at 190, 64 ALR 97; Arnold (on behalf of Australians for Animals) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1987) 73 ALR 607; Re Environment Centre NT and Department of the Environment, Sport & Territories (1994) 35 ALD 765 at 778; Re Lobo and Department of Immigration (2011) 56 AAR 1 at [200]-[211] (‘decision as to whether, when considered on a rational, as distinct from irrational, absurd or ridiculous basis, it is probable that the specified outcome will eventuate’); Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing v iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd (2010) 191 FCR 573. The Tribunal and Courts have generally been prepared to accept at face-value agency claims of likely harm: Arnold (on behalf of Australians for Animals) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1987) 73 ALR 607.

131

Removed by the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Act 2009. The provisions were: s 33 (national security, defence and international relations), s 33A (Commonwealth/State relations), s 34 (Cabinet documents), s 35 (Executive Council documents) and s 36 (deliberative process documents). The role of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in reviewing such a certificate had been limited to asking whether or not reasonable grounds existed at the time of the hearing for the claims made in the certificate. This prevented the Tribunal from weighing public interest factors in favour of disclosure against public interest factors favouring non-disclosure: McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45, (2006) 229 ALR 187.

132

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 22(1). An agency is under a duty to consider whether some form of redacted document can be provided: Day v Collector of Customs (1995) 57 FCR 176 at 180, 130 ALR 106. The redacted document must not be misleading: Re Carver and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (1987) 6 AAR 317 at 328, 12 ALD 447.

133

Thus, where a request is received by an agency for documents that contain information concerning a person’s or organisation’s commercial affairs, and it appears that the person or organisation might wish to contest the disclosure of the documents, then that person or organisation must be given notice of the request: Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 27. Similar third party provision is made in relation to documents containing personal information relating to a third party (Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 27A) and in relation to documents containing information that originated from a State (Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 26A).

54

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA documents, the third party may seek internal review and thereafter apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the agency’s decision.134 2– 015 Specific exemptions The exemptions may be grouped into 20 heads. The unconditional exemptions are: (1) Documents that would divulge a foreign government confidence.135 (2) Documents the disclosure of which would, or could be reasonably be expected to, cause damage to the national security, defence or international relations of Australia.136 (3) Cabinet documents and records.137 (4) Documents the disclosure of which would, or could be reasonably be expected to, cause damage to law enforcement, confidential sources of information relating to law enforcement, fair trials, or methods of criminal investigation.138 134

Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 26A, 26AA, 27, 27A and 60AA. Section 53C defines who is ‘an affected third party.’ That person is given a right to apply for internal review of an access grant decision (s 54A(2)), to be notified of a review application to the Information Commissioner (s 54P), to participate in that review (s 55A(1)(c)), to be given a copy of the Commissioner’s decision (s 55K(6)), to appeal on a point of law to the Federal Court against the Commissioner’s decision (s 56(1)), to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for merit review of the Commissioner’s decision (s 57A) and to be notified of another person’s appeal to the Tribunal (s 60AA(2)). A more detailed comparative treatment of third party rights of consultation and of ‘reverse FOI’ is given at §11– 043.

135

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 33(b). This includes information communicated by an international organisation.

136

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 33(a). This refers to Australia’s ability to maintain good working relations with overseas governments and to protect the flow of confidential information between it and other governments: Re Bui and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2005) 85 ALD 793. This head of exemption also exempts a document the disclosure of which would divulge any information communicated in confidence to the Australian Government by or on behalf of a foreign government, an authority of a foreign government or an international organisation. The information does not have to be confidential in nature: Re Haneef and Australian Federal Police [2009] AATA 51; Gersten v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 61 ALD 445. Section 33 does not involve a consideration of whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest: Commonwealth of Australia v Hittich (1994) 53 FCR 152 at 154; Re Lobo and Department of Immigration (2011) 56 AAR 1 at [85]-[89]. The section expresses an aspect of the public interest: Re Mann and Australian Taxation Office (1985) 3 AAR 261; Re O’Donovan and Attorney-General’s Department (1985) 4 AAR 151, 8 ALD 528; Re Edelsten and Australian Federal Police (1985) 4 AAR 220. The Courts and Tribunal have been generally ready to accept agency assertions that this sort of harm would be caused: Re Maher and Attorney-General’s Department (1985) 3 AAR 396; Re Stolpe and Department of Foreign Affairs (1985) 9 ALD 104; Re Fewster and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (No 2) (1987) 13 ALD 139; Re Wang and Department of Employment, Education and Training (1988) 15 ALD 497; Re Bayliss and Department of Health and Family Services (1997) 48 ALD 443; Gersten v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1221, [2001] FCA 159. In this context, the Courts and Tribunal have been prepared to accept the ‘mosaic theory’ (see §§15– 024 to 15– 025): Re McKnight and Australian Archives (1992) 28 ALD 95. A document already in the public domain can still enjoy exemption under this section: Commonwealth of Australia v Hittich (1994) 53 FCR 152.

137

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 34, considered in Re Telstra Corp Ltd and Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy [2010] AATA 118, (2010) 113 ALD 623. Purely factual material is generally exempted. The exemption applies to documents prepared for submission to Cabinet, even if not actually submitted to Cabinet: Re Rae and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (1986) 12 ALD 589; Re Porter and Department of Community Services and Health (1988) 14 ALD 403; Re Reith and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (1988) 16 ALD 709. In relation to analogous legislation: Department of Premier and Cabinet v Birrell (No 2) [1990] VR 51.

138

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 37. See generally: Re Lobo and Department of Immigration (2011) 56 AAR 1. This has been given a broad interpretation, covering: confidential sources of information (McKenzie v Secretary to the Department of Social Security (1986) 65 ALR 645); even if the information provided by the source is not in itself confidential (Re Dale and Australian Federal Police (1997) 47 ALD 417); policy documents setting out in what circumstances an agency would prosecute for a breach of statute (Re Murphy and Australian Electoral Commission (1994) 33 ALD 718); investigation manuals, even where large parts have been previously disclosed (Re Arnold Bloch Leibler

55

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS (5) Documents and information the disclosure of which is proscribed by other statutes.139 (6) Documents subject to legal professional privilege.140 (7) Documents the disclosure of which would found an action (other than by the Commonwealth) for breach of confidence.141 (8) Confidential documents originating from the Parliamentary Budget Officer or from his office.142 (9) Documents the disclosure of which would be a contempt of Court or of the Commonwealth or a State Parliament.143 (10) Trade secrets.144 (11) Electoral rolls.145 The public interest conditional exemptions are: (12) Documents the disclosure of which would, or could be reasonably be expected to,

& Co and Australian Taxation Office (No 2) (1985) 4 AAR 178, 9 ALD 7); any documents relating to public safety in a broad sense of the phrase (Re Parisi and Australian Federal Police (1987) 14 ALD 11); documents being used in an investigation (News Corp Ltd v National Companies and Securities Commission (1984) 57 ALR 550). But work accident investigation reports have been held not exempt under analogous Victorian legislation: Accident Compensation Commission v Croom [1991] 2 VR 322; nor is a police brief necessarily exempt: Sobh v Police Force of Victoria [1994] 1 VR 41. 139

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 38. This provision gave rise to considerable litigation prior to its amendment in 1991. The principles were summarised in Harrigan v Department of Health (1986) 72 ALR 293 at 294–295. See also: Kavvadias v Commonwealth Ombudsman (1984) 52 ALR 728; News Corp Ltd v National Companies and Securities Commission (1984) 57 ALR 550; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Swiss Aluminium Australia Ltd (1986) 66 ALR 159. In relation to analogous legislation: Secretary to the Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls [1999] 3 VR 331.

140

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 42. It has been held that for the purposes of the Act, legal professional privilege attaches to confidential professional communications between a Government agency and its salaried legal officers provided that it is undertaken for the sole purpose of seeking or giving legal advice or in connection with anticipated or pending litigation: Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54; see also Austin v Deputy Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department (1986) 67 ALR 585; Secretary, Department of Health v Proudfoot (1993) 114 FLR 384; Commonwealth of Australia v Dutton (2000) 102 FCR 168; Comcare v Foster [2006] FCA 6. In relation to analogous legislation: Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] VR 63 (documents relating to the sufficiency of evidence). The sole purpose test has since been reduced to a dominant purpose test: Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 168 ALR 123. It has been held that, for the purposes of the Act, privilege can be waived: Bennett v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service [2003] FCA 53; British American Tobacco Australia Ltd v Secretary, Dept of Health and Ageing (2011) 195 FCR 123..

141

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 45. This had been interpreted to capture information for which a common law breach of confidence would not succeed: Baueris v Commonwealth of Australia (1987) 75 ALR 327; Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Collector of Customs (1987) 14 FCR 434. Section 45 was subsequently amended to remove this possibility. The role of defences to an action in confidence and their applicability to the engagement of s 45 was considered in Re Lobo and Department of Immigration (2011) 56 AAR 1 and Callejo and Department of Immigration and Citizenship [2010] AATA 244, (2010) 51 AAR 308.

142

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 45A.

143

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 46.

144

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 47(1)(a). This whole section is designed to protect the interests of third parties: Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corp (1983) 78 FLR 236, 50 ALR 551. As to the meaning of this provision, see: Searle Australia Pty Ltd v Public Interest Advocacy Centre (1992) 108 ALR 163, 36 FCR 111; Secretary, Department of Workplace Relations & Small Business v The Staff Development & Training Centre Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 382, upheld at [2001] FCA 1375.

145

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 47A.

56

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a state.146 (13) Documents that record the deliberative process of the federal Government147 and its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.148 (14) Documents the disclosure of which would have a substantial adverse effect on the financial or property interests of the Commonwealth of Australia or an agency.149 (15) Documents the disclosure of which would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a deceased person) other than the applicant.150 146

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 47B. This head of exemption also exempts a document the disclosure of which would divulge information communicated in confidence by or on behalf of the Government of an Australian state to the federal Government. The earlier version of this exemption (s 33A) had been given a broad interpretation: Re Mickelberg and Australian Federal Police (1984) 6 ALN N176; Re Anderson and Department of Special Minister of State (1984) 7 ALN N155; Re Angel and Department of Art, Heritage and Environment (1985) 9 ALD 113; Arnold (on behalf of Australians for Animals) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1987) 73 ALR 607; Re Guy and Department of Transport (1987) 12 ALD 358; Re Birch and Attorney-General’s Department (1994) 33 ALD 675; Re Environment Centre NT Inc and Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories (1994) 35 ALD 765.

147

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 47C. The Courts and Tribunal had given the first paragraph of the earlier version of this exemption (s 36(1)) a broad interpretation, capable of encompassing most documents held by an agency recording any form of consideration of a decision: Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corp (1983) 78 FLR 236, 50 ALR 551 (interim reports should not be released because they could mislead); Re James and Australian National University (1984) 2 AAR 327; Murtagh v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 54 ALR 313 (documents showing process of making an assessment of taxation); Re Waterford and Department of the Treasury (No 2) (1984) 1 AAR 1, 5 ALD 588; Re Toohey and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (1985) 9 ALN 94; Re Howard and the Treasurer (Cth) (1985) 3 AAR 169 at 172–175; Re Chapman and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 23 AAR 142, 43 ALD 139; Re Subramanian and Refugee Review Tribunal (1997) 44 ALD 435; Re The Staff Development and Training Centre and Secretary, Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (2000) 30 AAR 330 at 354. In relation to analogous legislation: Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] VR 63 (documents considering whether to prosecute). Operational information (defined in s 8A, and which must be published in any event (s 8)), purely factual material, reports, etc are excluded from the exemption. The meaning of the earlier version (s 36) was considered in Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corp (No 2) (1984) 51 ALR 581.

148

In order for the exemption to engage, the agency must demonstrate that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. As to the matters which the Courts and Tribunal have taken into account under the rubric of the ‘public interest’, see: Murtagh v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 54 ALR 313; Burns v Australian National University (No 1) (1984) 1 AAR 456 at 458; Re Howard and Treasurer, Commonwealth (1985) 3 AAR 169; Re Swiss Aluminium and Department of Trade (1985) 9 ALD 243; Ryder v Booth [1985] VR 869 (inability to get further similar information); Re Reith and the Attorney-General’s Department (1987) 11 ALD 345; Re Fewster and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (No 2) (1987) 13 ALD 139; Re Reith and Minister of State for Aboriginal Affairs (1988) 16 ALD 709; Re Kamenka and Australian National University (1992) 15 AAR 297; Re Chapman and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 23 AAR 142 at 155–159; Re Bartle and Secretary, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1998) 28 AAR 140. If this exemption is relied upon, the ground of public interest must be specified.

149

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 47D.

150

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 47F. Section 47F(2) prescribes matters that must be taken into account. Where the agency concludes that disclosure of the information would be detrimental to the health of the applicant, it may supply it instead to a medical practitioner, counsellor or social worker. It has been held that a company does not have ‘personal affairs’ within the meaning of the Act: News Corp Ltd v National Companies and Securities Commission (1984) 1 FCR 64, 52 ALR 277; The University of Melbourne v Robinson [1993] 2 VR 177. In New South Wales it has been held that the release of the name of a person is not necessarily information concerning the personal affairs of a person: Commissioner of Police v District Court of NSW (1993) 31 NSWLR 606. In Victoria, detailed references to the business affairs of victims of crime are not exempt where the victims had earlier disclosed them to the public: Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] VR 63. The words ‘relating to’ have been given a very wide interpretation: Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corp (1991) 29 FCR 429, 100 ALR 111; Re Callejo and Department of Immigration and Citizenship [2010] AATA 244, (2010) 51 AAR 308. ‘Personal affairs’ itself has also been given a wide meaning: Re Williams and Registrar, Federal Court of Australia (1985) 8 ALD 219, 3 AAR 529; Young v Wicks (1986) 13 FCR 85; Department of Social Security v Dyrenfurth (1988) 80 ALR 533; Bleicher v Australian Capital Territory Health Authority (1990) 12 AAR 246; Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corp (1991) 29 FCR 429, 100

57

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS (16) Documents the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to destroy or diminish the commercial value of any information.151 (17) Documents the disclosure of which would, or could be reasonably be expected to, prejudice the effectiveness of audits or tests or to have a substantial adverse effect upon the running of an agency.152 (18) Documents the disclosure of which would be likely to result in an unreasonable exposure to disadvantage to specified agencies carrying out research that is incomplete.153 (19) Documents the disclosure of which would, or could be reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the Commonwealth to manage the economy.154 (20) Documents the disclosure of which would disclose information concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of a person or organisation, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to have an unreasonably adverse effect upon that person or organisation or to prejudice the future supply of information to the Commonwealth of Australia.155 2– 016 Appeals and enforcement Where an agency refuses access to documents, the first right of appeal is one of internal review by someone other than the original decision-maker.156 Generally, the applicant is required to lodge a request for an internal review within 30 days of receiving notification of the original decision.157 The principal officer must review the decision within 30 days of receiving the request.158 If the applicant either does not receive a response within that time or receives an unfavourable decision, he is entitled to apply to the Information Commissioner for a further review of the decision.159 An application for review must generally be made within 60 days after ALR 111. 151

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 47(1)(b). The section is designed to protect third party interests: Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corp (1983) 78 FLR 236, 50 ALR 551. As to the meaning of information having a commercial value, see: Gill v Department of Industry Technology and Resources [1987] VR 681; Secretary, Dept of Workplace Relations & Small Business v The Staff Development & Training Centre Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 382, upheld at [2001] FCA 1375.

152

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 47E. In relation to the earlier version of this exemption (s 40), the Courts and Tribunal had required a substantial degree of gravity before finding a ‘substantial adverse effect’: Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corp (1983) 78 FLR 236, 50 ALR 551; Re Dyki and Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 12 AAR 544, 22 ALD 124 (completed job applications not exempt); Searle Australia Pty Ltd v Public Interest Advocacy Centre (1992) 36 FCR 111, 108 ALR 163; Re Kamenka and Australian National University (1992) 15 AAR 297, 26 ALD 585; Re Murphy and Australian Electoral Commission (1994) 33 ALD 718.

153

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 47H.

154

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 47J.

155

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 47G. See Re Apache Energy Pty Ltd and National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (2012) 57 AAR 123.

156

Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 52-55E.

157

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 54B.

158

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 54C(3)

159

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 54L

58

NEW ZEALAND the notice of the decision refusing access to a document was given to the applicant.160 The power given to the Information Commissioner is to review any decision that has been made by an agency or minister with respect to a request for access to a document and to decide the matter on the same basis as the agency or minister could have decided it. 161 A person may appeal against the Commissioner’s decision, either to the Federal Court on a point of law or the Tribunal for merit review162 The Tribunal may compel the production to it of the documents covered by the request in order to make its decision.163 An appeal on a question of law lies from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the Federal Court.

4.

NEW ZEALAND

2– 017 Introduction In New Zealand, the power to elicit official information originated in a 1962 statute establishing an ombudsman.164 In May 1978 a Committee on Official Information was established to consider the extent to which official information could be made more readily available to the public. Following the Committee’s reports,165 the Official Information Act 1982 came into force on 1 July 1983. The State-owned Enterprises Act 1986 brought state-owned enterprises within the Official Information Act 1982. In 1987, the Act was amended by replacing the original ministerial veto of the Ombudsman’s recommendations with a collective veto by Order in Council; by expanding the protection for information about competitive commercial activities; by imposing time limits; and by extending coverage to additional organisations. In that same year, a separate Act was passed providing analogous rights of access to information held by local authorities.166 In 1993, the right of access to information where it related to a noncorporate applicant was transferred to the Privacy Act 1993. Thus, rights of access to official information are now split between three statutes: (1) In relation to information relating to the individual requesting it, under the Privacy 160

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 54M.

161

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 55K. The Commissioner’s power on review are set out in ss 54Z to 55Q.

162

The Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds of exemption relied upon by the agency: Searle Australia Pty Ltd v Public Interest Advocacy Centre (1992) 108 ALR 163; Victorian Casino and Gambling Authority v Hulls [1998] 4 VR 718 (relating to the analogous Victorian scheme). The Appellant’s representative may be given access to documents upon appropriate undertakings: Day v Collector of Customs (1995) 130 ALR 106; cf News Corporation Ltd v National Companies and Securities Commission (1984) 57 ALR 550; Department of Industrial Relations v Forrest (1990) 21 FCR 93, 91 ALR 417 (a certificate case).

163

Freedom of Information Act 1982 s 58E.

164

The Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act 1962. That statute empowered the Ombudsman to obtain information from governmental agencies and to disclose in any report such matters as in the Ombudsman’s opinion needed to be disclosed in order to establish grounds for any conclusions and recommendations made in the report.

165

Committee on Official Information, Towards Open Government: General Report (vol 1, 1980); Towards Open Government: Supplementary Report (vol 2, 1981). The Committee is commonly referred to as the Danks Committee and the reports as the Danks Report. The Supplementary Report contained a draft Bill that was to become the Official Information Act 1982.

166

The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

59

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS Act 1993;167 (2) In relation to other information held by local authorities, under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987; and (3) In relation to all other information, under the Official Information Act 1982.168 In June 2012 the Law Commissioner published a review of the legislation.169 It concluded that the coverage of the Official Information Act 1982 and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 should be combined in a single statute to facilitate administration and simplify the process. While the report suggests major changes to the regime, including a greater role for the Ombudsman, other central aspects – such as the operation of the public interest – it would maintain. 2– 018 Scope of the right Section 12(1) of the Official Information Act 1982 enables citizens, residents and persons in New Zealand, as well as companies incorporated in New Zealand, to request a ‘department or Minister of the Crown’ to make available to the applicant any specified ‘official information’.170 The term ‘official information’ is defined to mean ‘information’171 that is ‘held’172 by a department,173 Minister of the Crown or organisation.174 The right of access to personal information175 (whether of an individual or a company) is provided separately from the general 167

As to the division between the Official Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1993, see Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Commissioner of Police [2008] NZHC 1286.

168

There is a limited inter-relationship between the statutes, so that where the applicant seeks information under the Official Information Act 1982 or under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for information relating to a third party, the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 are relevant: Official Information Act 1982 s 9(2)(a); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 7(2)(a). A more detailed comparative treatment of third party rights of consultation and of ‘reverse FOI’ is given at §11– 043.

169

The Public’s Right to Know: Review of the Official Information Legislation (NZLC R 125), available at:

170

In relation to information held by a local authority, the provision is the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 10(1).

171

There is no definition of ‘information’. As to the meaning given by the courts to ‘information’, see: Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman [1985] 1 NZLR 578 at 586, [1988] 1 NZLR 385 at 402 (CA) (‘information’ is ‘that which informs, instructs, tells or makes aware’); Ross v Tarnaki City Council [1990] DCR 11 (information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 must be tangible or retrievable); Aldous v Auckland City Council [1990] DCR 385; R v Harvey [1991] 1 NZLR 242 at 246; Herewini v Ministry of Transport [1992] 3 NZLR 482 at 498; Leach v Ministry of Transport [1993] 1 NZLR 106 at 108. Excluded from ‘official information’ is certain information held by universities and information contained in library or museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes and certain other information: see Official Information Act 1982 s 2(1).

172

The Act does not define when information is ‘held’ by a department. See R v Harvey [1991] 1 NZLR 242 at 246.

173

Departments are those listed in Pt I of the First Schedule to the Ombudsmen Act 1975: Official Information Act 1982 s 2(1), but excluding the bodies listed in s 2(6).

174

Official Information Act 1982 s 2; Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 2(1). ‘Organisations’ are those named in Part II of the First Schedule to the Ombudsmen Act 1975 and those named in the First Schedule to the Official Information Act 1982. Certain organisations are excluded: see Official Information Act 1982 s 2(6).

175

That is, information that is about the person requesting the information. The distinction between ‘personal’ and ‘non-personal’ information has been described as ‘both artificial and arbitrary’: Cornelius v Commissioner for Police [1998] 3 NZLR 373 at 379; cf Police v Keogh [2000] 1 NZLR 736 at 742.

http://r125.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/

60

NEW ZEALAND right to information.176 The scope of the right varies according to the governing statute.177 The access statutes require departments etc to give reasonable assistance to anyone using the Act.178 The two main Acts also provide for publication schemes.179 2– 019 The request A request may be made orally or in writing, but it must have due particularity.180 The department may refuse to answer a request that is frivolous or vexatious;181 where the information requested is trivial;182 where making the information available would involve substantial collation or research;183 or where the information is or will shortly be publicly available.184 Where a department receives a request but either does not hold the information sought and believes that another department does, or if it considers that the information requested is more closely connected with another department, then the former department may

176

Requests for personal information by individuals about themselves are governed by the Privacy Act 1993. That Act provides that where an agency holds personal information in such a way that it can be readily retrieved, the individual about whom the information relates has a legal right, enforceable in a Court of law, to obtain confirmation from the agency of whether or not it holds such information and to have access to that information: s 6, principle 6(1) and s 11(i). This right applies to any individual who is a New Zealand citizen, or a permanent resident of New Zealand, or a person in New Zealand: Privacy Act 1993 ss 33 and 34 (s 2(1) defines ‘individual’ as a natural person). ‘Personal information’ is defined as being ‘official information held about an identifiable person.’ In Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman [1985] 1 NZLR 578 at 586, [1988] 1 NZLR 385 at 402 (CA), the Court took this to mean information about a person. Part IV of the Official Information Act 1982 (ss 24–27) is devoted to access to personal information by a body corporate. Section 24(1) bestows the right upon a body corporate to be given access to any personal information that is about that body corporate, subject ss 10 and 52. In relation to local authorities, the right of access by a company to information relating to itself is bestowed by the Local Government and Official Information Act 1987 s 23.

177

In the Official Information Act 1982 there is a ‘principle of availability’ (s 5) by which information held by a department should be made available unless there is a compelling reason not to. ‘In contrast to the Official Information Act 1982, the focus of the Privacy Act 1993 is the protection of personal information, as opposed to the principle of availability under the Official Information Act 1982’: In the matter of C [2005] NZFLR 56.

178

Official Information Act 1982 ss 13, 22(3), 23(3) and 24(3); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 11, 21(2), 22(2) and 23(2); Privacy Act 1993 s 38. The level of assistance that can be considered ‘reasonable’ under Privacy Act 1993 s 38 is subjective, and should take into account the ability of the person requiring access and the context: Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Holmes [2013] NZHC 672.

179

Official Information Act 1982 s 20. This requires the publication and updating of a document that describes the structure, functions, and responsibilities of all government departments and organisations subject to each of the Acts, as well as a description of the categories of documents held by each body and certain other details. Every person has a right of access to these last details: Official Information Act 1982 s 21.

180

Official Information Act 1982 s 12(2); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 10(2). A request for personal information may be made by an agent: Official Information Act 1982 s 25(c); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 24(c); Privacy Act 1993 s 45(c). A request for personal information made by a natural person under the Official Information Act 1982 is deemed to be a request under the Privacy Act 1993 s 6(1)(b).

181

Official Information Act 1982 s 18(h); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 17(h); Privacy Act 1993 s 29(1)(j).

182

Official Information Act 1982 s 18(h); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 17(h); Privacy Act 1993 s 29(1)(j).

183

Official Information Act 1982 s 18(f); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 17(f); Privacy Act 1993 s 29(2)(a).

184

Official Information Act 1982 s 18(d); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 17(d).

61

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS transfer the request to the latter department.185 2– 020 The response Within 20 working days of receiving a request, the department must inform the applicant whether access to the requested information is to be given and, if not, of the reasons for the decision.186 The 20-working-day period may be extended for a reasonable period of time where the request is for a large quantity of information, requires searching through a large quantity of information, or requires consultations that cannot be completed within the original time limit.187 If the requested information is not provided within the 20 working days or the extended period, the request is deemed to have been refused.188 If the decision is to give access, that may take any of a number of forms: giving the applicant an opportunity to examine the document containing the information; providing a copy of it; providing information about a document’s contents, etc.189 If the decision is to refuse access, the department, etc must give reasons for the refusal and, if requested, the statutory grounds for that refusal.190 A department, etc may only refuse to disclose information answering the terms of a proper request if it falls within one of the grounds of exemption.191 In refusing a request, the department is not required to confirm or deny whether any information answering the terms of the request actually exists if to do so would be likely to damage security, defence, international relations, represent a breach of confidence, endanger individuals, reveal a trade secret or damage the economy.192 A charge may be imposed for the disclosure of information, depending upon: the statute under which access is sought; whether the information sought is personal information; and whether the body to which the request is made is a public sector agency or a private sector agency.193 185

Official Information Act 1982 s 14; Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 12(b)(i); Privacy Act 1993 s 39. If the department in question has no grounds for believing either that another department possesses the requested information or that the requested information is more closely connected with another department, then the requested department may refuse the request: Official Information Act 1982 s 18(g).

186

Official Information Act 1982 ss 15(1), 22(3), 23(3) and 24(3); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 13 and 23(2); Privacy Act 1993 s 40(1)(a).

187

Official Information Act 1982 ss 15A(1)(a) and 24(3); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 14(1)(a) and 23(2); Privacy Act 1993 s 41(1)(a).

188

Official Information Act 1982 s 28(4) (in relation to a s 12 request). Where the request is made in such a form that the department does not recognise it as a request for information under the Act, then the deemed refusal provisions will not be engaged: Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Holmes [2013] NZHC 672

189

Official Information Act 1982 ss 16(1)(a)–(f) and 24(3); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 15(1)(a)–(f) and 23(2); Privacy Act 1993 s 42(1). The form of access must be that preferred by the applicant unless to do so would impair efficient administration and so forth: Official Information Act 1982 s 16(2); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 15(2); Privacy Act 1993 s 42(2). This includes a requirement to make the information readable where it is stored in a way that is not visible to the applicant: Commissioner of Police v District Court at Manukau [2007] NZHC 101.

190

Official Information Act 1982 s 19; Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 18.

191

Official Information Act 1982 ss 18 and 27(1); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 17 and 26; Privacy Act 1993 s 30. This includes that a document containing the requested information cannot be found; Official Information Act 1982 s 18(e).

192

Official Information Act 1982 s 10; Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 8; Privacy Act 1993 s 32.

193

Official Information Act 1982 ss 15(2) and 24(3); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 13(1A); Privacy Act 1993 ss 35, 36 and 59.

62

NEW ZEALAND Specific provision is made for excision of exempt information contained in a document.194 Although there is no express power enabling a conditional release of information, there would appear to be an implicit power to do so, as the ombudsman is given power to investigate such conditions.195 There is nothing proscribing the discretionary release of information that is exempt under the Act.196 2– 021 Exemptions generally Exemptions under the New Zealand legislation divide into two broad classes: those that are engaged upon their terms being satisfied;197 and those that will be disengaged if, in the circumstances, the withholding of particular information is outweighed by other considerations which render it desirable in the public interest to make that information available.198 The exemptions may also be categorised into prejudice-based exemptions, which require that disclosure ‘be likely to prejudice’ an identified interest,199 and pure class-based exemptions, which do not require that prejudice flow from disclosure of the requested information. The applicability of exemptions varies according to whether the information sought is personal information and, if so, whether the person is a corporate person. In considering exemptions, the overarching principle is that information is to be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it.200 Certificates may be issued by the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General on the grounds that disclosure of the requested information would be likely to prejudice: the defence or security of New Zealand or one of its dependencies; international relations; or the investigation, etc of offences.201 The effect of a certificate is that the Ombudsman may not recommend the disclosure of the information to which the certificate relates. 2– 022 The absolute exemptions 194

Official Information Act 1982 ss 17(1), 22(4) and 24(3); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 16(1) and 23(2); Privacy Act 1993 ss 21(3) and 43(1).

195

Official Information Act 1982 s 28(1)(c); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 27(1)(c); Privacy Act 1993 s 66(2)(a)(iii), where the power is vested in the Privacy Commissioner. Examples of conditions imposed are: (1) where information was released on the condition that the information could only be published together with a statement or explanation from the holder of the information; (2) where information was to be used for Court proceedings on the basis of undertakings by the parties that the information would not be made available to the media.

196

Although where its disclosure breaches the privacy principles set out in the Privacy Act 1993 this may give rise to a complaint either under that Act or to the Ombudsman. Discretionary disclosure does not attract the protection given by the Official Information Act 1982 s 48.

197

Official Information Act 1982 ss 18(c)(i) and 52(3); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 17(c)(i) and 44(2); Privacy Act 1993 s 7.

198

Official Information Act 1982 ss 18(c)(ii) and 52(1); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 17(c)(ii) and 44(1); Privacy Act 1993 s 29(1)(i).

199

The High Court has held that the test to be applied in determining whether withholding the information is necessary to protect one of the specified interests is one of ‘reasonable’ necessity, rather than ‘strict’ necessity: Television New Zealand Ltd v Ombudsman [1992] 1 NZLR 106 at 118. The ‘would be likely’ test has been held not to mean ‘more likely than not’, but to involve a lesser threshold, namely: ‘a serious or real and substantial risk to a protected interest, a risk that might well eventuate’: Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman [1988] 1 NZLR 385 (CA).

200

Official Information Act 1982 s 5. The Courts have rejected the notion that there is a general presumption that exemptions are to be narrowly construed: Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman [1988] 1 NZLR 385 (CA).

201

Official Information Act 1982 s 31.

63

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS Information may be withheld without a consideration of the public interest where: (1) Disclosure would be likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or certain external dependencies or the international relations of the New Zealand Government.202 (2) Disclosure would be likely to prejudice the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on a basis of confidence by the Government of any other country or any agency of such a government, or by any international organisation.203 (3) Disclosure would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial.204 (4) Disclosure would be likely to endanger the safety of any person.205 (5) Disclosure would be likely to damage seriously the New Zealand economy by disclosing prematurely decisions to change or continue government economic or financial policies relating to: exchange rates or the control of overseas exchange transactions; the regulation of banking or credit; taxation; the stability, control, and adjustment of prices of goods and services, rents, and other costs, and rates of wages, salaries, and other incomes; the borrowing of money by the New Zealand government; and the entering into of overseas trade agreements.206 (6) Disclosure would be contrary to the provisions of another enactment.207 (7) Disclosure would be a contempt of court or of the House of Representatives.208 2– 023 The qualified exemptions The remaining exemptions involve a two-stage process. First, a consideration of whether withholding the requested information is necessary in order to protect particular interests or to avoid particular prejudice. Secondly, if it is so necessary, to consider whether the withholding of the information is outweighed by other considerations that nevertheless render it desirable in the public interest to make that information available. So far as the first stage is concerned, this will be satisfied where the withholding of the information is necessary: (1) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons.209 202

Official Information Act 1982 ss 6(a), 7 and 27(1)(a); Privacy Act 1993 ss 27(1)(a) and 27(2)(a)–(c).

203

Official Information Act 1982 ss 6(b) and 27(1)(a); Privacy Act 1993 s 27(1)(b).

204

Official Information Act 1982 ss 6(c) and 27(1)(a); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 6(a) and 26(1)(a); Privacy Act 1993 s 27(1)(c). See Nicholl v Chief Executive of the Department of Work and Income [2003] 3 NZLR 426 at [17].

205

Official Information Act 1982 ss 6(d) and 27(1)(a); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 6(b) and 26(1)(a); Privacy Act 1993 s 27(1)(d).

206

Official Information Act 1982 ss 6(e) and 27(1)(a).

207

Official Information Act 1982 ss 18(c)(i), 27(1)(a) and 52(3)(b); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 17(c)(i), 26(1)(a) and 44(2)(b); Privacy Act 1993 s 7(2)–(3).

208

Official Information Act 1982 ss 18(c)(ii), 27(1)(a) and 52(1); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 17(c)(ii), 26(1)(a) and 44(1); Privacy Act 1993 s 29(1)(i).

209

Official Information Act 1982 ss 9(2)(a) and 27(1)(b); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 7(2)(a) and 26(1)(b); Privacy Act 1993 s 29(1)(a). Although not involving a request under the Act, Mafart and anor v Television New Zealand [2006] NZCA 183 is illustrative of privacy interests being subordinated to the public

64

NEW ZEALAND To protect information where the making available of that information would disclose a trade secret, or would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.210 (3) To protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment.211 (4) To avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public.212 (5) To avoid prejudice to the substantial economic interests of New Zealand.213 (6) To avoid prejudice to measures that prevent or mitigate material loss to members of the public.214 (7) To maintain the constitutional conventions for the time being which protect: the confidentiality of communications by or with the Sovereign or her representative; collective and individual ministerial responsibility; the political neutrality of officials; and the confidentiality of advice tendered by ministers of the Crown and officials (these reasons are not applicable in the case of local authorities).215 (8) To maintain the effective conduct of public affairs, through the free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to ministers or members of a specified organisation or officers and employees of any department, organisation, or local authority in the course of their duty; or through the protection of such ministers, members, officers, and employees from improper pressure or harassment.216 (9) To maintain legal professional privilege.217 (10) To enable a minister, department, specified organisation, or local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.218 (11) To enable a minister, department, specified organisation, or local authority holding the information to carry on negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage, (2)

interest by making important Court proceedings accessible to the public (video-tape of the committal proceedings of the Rainbow Warrior bombers). See further: Gravatt v Auckland Coroner’s Court [2013] NZHC 390 at [80]. 210

Official Information Act 1982 ss 9(2)(b) and 27(1)(a); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 7(2)(b) and 26(1)(a); Privacy Act 1993 s 28(1)(a)–(b).

211

Official Information Act 1982 ss 9(2)(ba) and 27(1)(c); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 7(2)(c) and 26(1)(c); Privacy Act 1993 s 29(1)(b). The courts have rejected the notion that the contractual provisions requiring confidentiality to be kept necessarily protected the information from being disclosed under the Act: Wyatt Co (NZ) Ltd v Queenstown-Lakes District Council [1991] 2 NZLR 180.

212

Official Information Act 1982 s 9(2)(c); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 7(2)(d); Privacy Act 1993 s 29(1)(c).

213

Official Information Act 1982 s 9(2)(d).

214

Official Information Act 1982 s 9(2)(e); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 7(2)(e).

215

Official Information Act 1982 s 9(2)(f).

216

Official Information Act 1982 s 9(2)(g); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 7(2)(f).

217

Official Information Act 1982 ss 9(2)(h) and 27(1)(h); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ss 7(2)(g) and 26(1)(h); Privacy Act 1993 s 29(1)(f).

218

Official Information Act 1982 s 9(2)(i); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 7(2)(h).

65

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS including commercial or industrial negotiations.219 (12) To prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.220 2– 024 Appeals and enforcement The first stage of the appeal system lies with the Ombudsman, who, upon a complaint, may investigate and review any decision to refuse access or to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of requested information.221 The Ombudsman has all the normal powers under the Ombudsmen Act 1975, including compelling the production of information. After investigation, the Ombudsman must make a report with recommendations, setting out whether it is considered that the original decision was wrong or unreasonable.222 The department is obliged to observe a recommendation of the Ombudsman unless the Governor-General, by Order in Council, otherwise directs.223 Where no Order in Council is made, a person dissatisfied with the Ombudsman’s recommendation may have it and the original decision judicially reviewed. Where an Order in Council is made, an appeal may be made to the High Court on grounds that it was wrong in law224 and, from there, to the Court of Appeal.225 There is statutory protection for those who in good faith release official information under the access acts.226

5.

CANADA

2– 025 Introduction In Canada, legislation giving a general right of access to government-held information originated in the provinces. In 1977 Nova Scotia became the first Canadian jurisdiction to pass such legislation, followed by New Brunswick in 1978, Newfoundland in 1981 and Quebec in 1982.227 Federal legislation giving a general right of access to government-held information was passed in June 1982. Called the Access to Information Act, it was enacted at the same time as 219

Official Information Act 1982 s 9(2)(j); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 7(2)(i).

220

Official Information Act 1982 s 9(2)(k); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 7(2)(j).

221

Official Information Act 1982 s 28(1); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 27(1).

222

Official Information Act 1982 s 30(1); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 29(1).

223

Official Information Act 1982 s 32(1); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 31(1).

224

Official Information Act 1982 s 32B; Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 34.

225

Official Information Act 1982 s 32C; Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 35.

226

Official Information Act 1982 s 48(1); Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 s 41(1); Privacy Act 1993 s 115(1). If the original supplier to the department did so in breach of confidence, that person will not enjoy the statutory protection where that information is disclosed under an access Act: Attorney-General v Davidson [1994] 3 NZLR 143 (CA).

227

The original Nova Scotia Act was replaced in 1993 by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1993 (Nova Scotia); Right to Information Act 1978 (New Brunswick); Freedom of Information Act 1990 (Newfoundland); An Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information 1982 (Quebec).

66

CANADA the Privacy Act,228 and they came into force on 1 July 1983. All of the remaining provincial and territorial jurisdictions subsequently introduced similar legislation.229 Since its enactment, the Access to Information Act has been amended on three occasions, all of which have been of relatively minor significance.230 2– 026 Scope of the right Section 4 of the Act gives Canadian citizens and permanent residents a right of access to records under the control of a government institution, subject only to specific exclusions231 and exemptions.232 The Act gives the Governor in Council power to extend this right to others, and in 1989 the access right was extended to include all individuals and incorporated entities present in the country.233 The unit of disclosure under the Access to Information Act is a ‘record’,234 as opposed to a ‘document’ or ‘information’. In order for the right to arise, a record must be ‘under the control’235 of a ‘government institution’.236 Decisions granting or refusing 228

The purpose of the Privacy Act is, broadly speaking, to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by a government institution and to provide individuals with a right of access to that information: Dagg v Canada (Minister of Finance) [1997] SCJ 63 at [61]; Canada (Attorney-General) v Canada (Information Commissioner) [2002] FCT 128.

229

Freedom of Information Act 1998 (Manitoba); Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1992 (Saskatchewan); Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1988 (Ontario); Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1996 (British Columbia); Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1994 (Alberta); Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 2001 (Prince Edward Island); Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1994 (Northwest Territories); Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1996 (Yukon Territory).

230

In 1992, the Act was amended to deal with the provision of records in alternative formats to individuals with sensory disabilities. In 1999, it was amended to make it a criminal offence to intentionally obstruct the right of access by destroying, altering, hiding or falsifying a record, or directing anyone else to do so. In 2001, it was amended by the Anti-terrorism Act which provides that a certificate by the Attorney-General prohibiting the disclosure of information for the purpose of protecting national defence or national security will override the provisions of the Access to Information Act.

231

Published, library and museum material are generally excluded from the operation of the Act: Access to Information Act s 68. So, too, confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada (ie cabinet material): Access to Information Act s 69. In relation to cabinet material generally, see: Canada (Minister of Environment) v Canada (Information Commissioner) [2003] FCA 68.

232

Exemptions, which are provided for by Access to Information Act ss 13–26, are considered at §§2– 029 to 2– 032.

233

Access to Information Act Extension Order No 1 (SOR/89–207).

234

Access to Information Act s 3 defines ‘record’ to mean any documentary material, regardless of medium or form. It has been held that ‘software’ does not constitute a record; a ‘record’ can include something not yet in existence but that can be assembled from data already held: Yeager v Canada (Correctional Service) [2003] FCA 30..

235

The Act does not define when a record is ‘under the control’ of an institution. The authorities indicate that any document that happens to be in the custody or in the hands of a government institution, regardless of how or upon what conditions, will be under its control: Montana Band of Indians v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) [1989] 1 FC 143 (TD), 51 DLR (4th) 306; Ottawa Football Club v Canada (Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sports) [1989] 2 FC 480 (TD); Canada Post Corp v Canada (Minister of Public Works) [1995] 2 FC 110, 30 Admin LR (2d) 242, affirming [1993] 3 FC 320, 19 Admin LR (2d) 230; Rubin v Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) [2001] FCT 440 (a returned document is not ‘under the control’ of an institution); Federation des Producteurs v Canadian Food Inspection Agency [2007] FC 704. In relation to documents obtained by the institution from a third party through court disclosure or discovery, see Andersen Consulting v Canada [2001] 2 FC 324.

236

Access to Information Act s 3 simply defines a ‘government institution’ as any department or ministry, body or office listed in Sch I of the Act. Schedule I lists 19 departments and ministries and a number of other bodies and offices. It also applies to Crown corporations and wholly-owned subsidiaries. But the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation enjoys similar exemption to that enjoyed by the BBC in the United Kingdom: Access to Information

67

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS access must be made by the ‘head’ of each government institution, with the head of each institution being designated by regulation.237 2– 027 The request A request must be made in writing.238 There is no power to refuse to answer a request that is frivolous, vexatious or abusive. The only control over burdensome requests lies in the fees regime.239 Where a government institution receives a request but considers that another government institution has a greater interest in the record, the former institution may transfer the request to the latter institution.240 The Act provides for a publication scheme.241 The head of a government institution must give every reasonable assistance to a person making a request and to respond promptly.242 2– 028 The response Within 30 days of receiving a request, a government institution must inform the applicant whether access to the requested record is to be given and, if so, to provide it.243 The 30-day period may be extended ‘for a reasonable period of time’ where the request is for a large number of records, requires a search through a large number of records, requires consultations that cannot be completed within the original time limit, or where notice has to be given to third parties.244 If a record is not provided within the original 30 days or the extended period, the request is deemed to have been refused.245 If, after processing a request, it is decided to give access, that access takes the form of an opportunity to examine the record or the provision of a copy of the record.246 If the institution decides to refuse access, it must cite the statutory Act s 68.1. As to ministerial offices, see: Canada (Attorney-General) v Canada (Information Commissioner) [2000] FCA 26. As to the meaning of the phrase ‘government institution,’ see Information Commissioner v Minister for National Defence [2009] FCA 175, upholding [2009] 2 FCR 86 (considering the circumstances in which a record physically located in a Minister’s office is nevertheless under the control of the government institution over which he presides); Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [2011] SCC 25. 237

Access to Information Act Heads of Government Institutions Designation Order SI 1983/113.

238

Access to Information Regulations (SOR/83–507) reg 4.

239

Access to Information Act s 11 and Access to Information Regulations (SOR/83–507) reg 7 provide for an applicant to be charged an application fee, not exceeding $25, and also to be charged for: reasonable search and preparation time in excess of five hours; the costs of producing a record in an alternative format; the production of a machine-readable record; and reproduction costs. In all cases, specific amounts are set by regulation. Heads of institutions can require applicants to pay deposits, or to waive or repay a fee. The ability to use the fees regime to control what are considered to be frivolous or vexatious requests would appear to be limited: Rubin v Canada (Minister of Finance) (1987) 9 FTR 317, 35 DLR (4th) 517.

240

Access to Information Act s 8; Access to Information Regulations (SOR/83–507) reg 6.

241

Access to Information Act s 5.

242

Access to Information Act s 4(2.1).

243

Access to Information Act s 7.

244

Access to Information Act s 9.

245

As to the review by the courts of decisions to extend the time within which to respond to a request, see: Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of External Affairs) [1989] 1 FC 3, 32 Admin LR 265; Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of External Affairs) [1990] 3 FC 514; X v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [1991] 1 FC 670.

246

Access to Information Act s 12(1); Access to Information Regulations (SOR/83–507) regs 5 and 8.

68

CANADA ground for refusing access or what it would be if the record existed.247 In refusing a request, the institution is not required to confirm whether any record answering the terms of the request actually exists.248 An institution must so far as practicable excise exempted portions of records and provide access to the rest.249 An institution must make reasonable efforts to give a third party that supplied information to it notice of its intention to disclose that information.250 2– 029 Exemptions generally The Access to Information Act divides exemptions into mandatory and discretionary exemptions.251 Mandatory exemptions must be invoked; discretionary exemptions allow the head of a government institution to decide whether the exemption needs to be invoked. Each exemption is based on either an ‘injury test’ or ‘class test’. Exemptions which incorporate an ‘injury test’ take into consideration whether the disclosure of certain information could ‘reasonably be expected’ to be injurious to a specified interest.252 ‘Class test’ exemptions are those applying to a record that matches the description given in the statutory provision; in order to engage the exemption there is no need to demonstrate any likelihood of injury resulting from disclosure of the record. Two of the mandatory exemptions include public interest overrides. These allow the head of a government institution to disclose information where this would be in the public interest as defined in the provision.253 2– 030 Onus, purpose clause and conclusive certificates Although there is no specific provision in the Act specifying whether it is the institution or the applicant who must demonstrate the applicability or inapplicability of a ground of exemption, the courts have held that where there is a contest between disclosure and non-disclosure of a record, the burden rests upon the party resisting disclosure.254 This approach is consistent with 247

Access to Information Act s 10(1).

248

Access to Information Act s 10(2).

249

Access to Information Act s 25. See Sheldon Blank & Gateway Industries v Canada (Minister of Environment) [2001] FCA 374.

250

Access to Information Act s 27(1). The party can make representations in relation to the proposed disclosure: s 28. Similarly, if the Information Commissioner proposes to recommend disclosure, notice must be given to the third party: s 35(2)(c). As to the nature of the obligation to give a third party notice, see Canada (Minister of Health) v Merck Frosst Canada Ltd [2009] FCA 166, affirmed by Merck Frosst Canada Ltd v Canada (Minister of Health) [2012] SCC 3.

251

There are no mandatory exemptions in the FOIA.

252

The courts have interpreted this to mean that there must be a reasonable expectation of probable harm: Canada Packers Inc v Canada (Minister of Agriculture) [1989] 1 FC 47. Mere assertions will not suffice: Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [2001] FCT 556; Wyeth-ayerst Canada Inc v Canada (AttorneyGeneral) [2002] FCT 133; Geophysical Service Inc v Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board [2003] FCT 507; Merck Frosst Canada Ltd v Canada (Minister of Health) [2012] SCC 3.

253

Access to Information Act s 20(6) permits the head of an institution to disclose commercial information from a third party if this would be in the public interest as it relates to health, safety or protection of the environment, and the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any injury to the third party. Section 19 of the Access to Information Act provides a similar public interest override in relation to the exemption for personal information. The consideration of the public interest only as it concerns the specific exemption, rather than in general, is the model adopted in the FOIA.

254

Maislin Industries Ltd v Minister for Industry, Trade & Commerce [1984] 1 FC 939; Rubin v Canada (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp) [1989] 1 FC 265; Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of External Affairs) [1990] 3 FC

69

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS the Act’s purpose clause, which includes a statement of principle that government information should be available to the public and that necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific.255 Until late 2001, the Access to Information Act did not include any mechanism for taking particular documents outside of its operation or for reducing the ability to review a non-disclosure decision. The Anti-terrorism Act (2001) amended the Access to Information Act by adding a provision256 which provides that a certificate by the AttorneyGeneral prohibiting the disclosure of information for the purpose of protecting national defence or national security will override the provisions of the Access to Information Act. The certificates are subject to review by the Federal Court of Appeal. 2– 031 Mandatory exemptions There are seven class-based mandatory exemptions: (1) Information received in confidence from other governments.257 (2) Information obtained or prepared by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on provincial or municipal policing services.258 (3) Personal information.259 (4) Trade secrets of a third party.260 665. This also applies where a third party resists disclosure: Wyeth-ayerst Canada Inc v Canada (Attorney-General) [2002] FCT 133; Cistel Technology Inc v Canada (Correctional Service) [2002] FCT 253; Blank v Canada (Minister of Environment) [2006] FC 1253. Where proceedings are on foot, the position is governed by Access to Information Act s 48. 255

Access to Information Act s 2.

256

Access to Information Act s 69(1).

257

Access to Information Act s 13(1). The exemption becomes discretionary if the body from whom the information was obtained either consents to its disclosure or makes it public itself: s 13(1). See Sherman v Minister of National Revenue [2003] FCA 202 (tax information exchanged under convention).

258

Access to Information Act s 16(3).

259

Access to Information Act s 19.

The personal information exception has been the most invoked:

http://www.armaedfoundation.org/pdfs/Freedom_of_Information_in_US_UK_and_Canada.pdf. As

to the division between the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and the meaning of ‘personal information’, see: Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of Industry) [2002] FCA 212, (2002) 284 DLR (4th) 293; Information Commissioner v Royal Canadian Mounted Police [2003] 1 SCR 66; Yaeger v National Parole Board [2008] FCA 13. The Act adopts the definition of ‘personal information’ given in the Privacy Act s 3, which is that it is ‘information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form’ and then proceeds to give a series of specific inclusions. Personal information has been held to extend to qualitative evaluations of an employee’s performance (Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Solicitor General) [1988] 3 FC 557) and to the remuneration levels of various chairmen, heads, and presiding officials of an agency (Rubin v Canada (Clerk of the Privy Council) (1993) 62 FTR 287); see also: Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Cultural Property Export Review Board) [2001] FCT 1054; Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) [2001] 3 FC 70, [2001] FCA 56; Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] FCA 270; Canada (Information Commissioner) v Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board [2006] FCA 157 [2007] 1 FCR 203 (holding that recordings of air traffic controllers did not constitute ‘personal information’); Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [2011] SCC 25. An ‘identifiable individual’ does not include a corporation: Geophysical Service Inc v Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board [2003] FCT 507. As to the level of detail that makes information ‘personal information’, see Gordon v Minister of Health [2008] FC 258. The exemption is subject to a public interest override: s 19(6). 260

70

Access to Information Act s 20(1)(a). The Courts have given this exemption a narrow interpretation: Merck Frosst Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health and Welfare) (1988) 20 FTR 73; Canada Post Corp v Canada (Minister of Public Works) [1993] 3 FC 320, affirmed (1993), 64 FTR 62; Matol Botanical International Inc v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare) (1994) 84 FTR 168; Société Gamma Inc v Canada (Secretary of State) (1994) 79 FTR 42; PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP v Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) [2001] FCT 1040; Wyeth-ayerst Canada Inc v Canada

CANADA Financial, commercial, scientific or technical information received in confidence from a third party.261 (6) Information the disclosure of which is restricted by or pursuant to any provision set out in Sch II to the Act.262 (6A) Information held by the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Auditor-General, the Chief Electoral Officer and certain other office-holders, created or obtained by them in the course of an investigation, examination or audit conducted by them.263 There are two injury-based mandatory exemptions: (7) Records the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause loss or gain to a third party or prejudice to competitive position.264 (8) Records the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party.265 (5)

(Attorney-General) [2002] FCT 133; Cistel Technology Inc v Canada (Correctional Service) [2002] FCT 253; St Joseph Corp v Canada (Public Works and Government Services) [2002] FCT 274; Canada (Minister of Health) v Merck Frosst Canada Ltd [2009] FCA 166, affirmed by Merck Frosst Canada Ltd v Canada (Minister of Health) [2012] SCC 3.. 261

Access to Information Act s 20(1)(b). The courts have held that the information must still have its confidentiality at the time of the request in order for the exemption to operate: Maislin Industries Ltd v Canada (Minister for Industry, Trade & Commerce) [1984] 1 FC 939. The general approach of the courts has been to scrutinise carefully claims of confidentiality, whether these claims are made by the government institution or by the third party that supplied the information: Noël v Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Ltd [1988] 2 FC 77; Intercontinental Packers Ltd v Canada (Minister of Agriculture) (1987) 14 FTR 142; Ottawa Football Club v Canada (Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sports) [1989] 2 FC 480; Canada Packers Inc v Canada (Minister of Agriculture) [1989] 1 FC 47; PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP v Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) [2001] FCT 1040; Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [2001] FCT 556; Canada (Minister of Health & Welfare) v Merck Frosst Canada & Co [2005] FCA 215 (even if the format is different, once the information is in the public domain it can no longer be confidential); Minister of Public Works and Government Services v The Hi-Rise Group Inc [2004] FCA 99, (2004) 238 DLR (4th) 44 (the rent paid by a government agency for premises held not to be confidential: ‘when a would-be contractor sets out to win a government contract through a confidential bidding process, he or she cannot expect that the monetary terms, in the event that the bid succeeds, will remain confidential’), and similarly 131 Queen Street Limited v Canada (Attorney-General) [2007] FC 347; Heinz Company of Canada Ltd v Canada (Attorney-General) [2006] FCA 378 (rejecting a claim by Heinz that information supplied by it to government inspectors was confidential). See also Merck Frosst Canada Ltd v Canada (Minister of Health) [2012] SCC 3, finding that financial, commercial, scientific or technical information need not have an ‘inherent value’ and that ‘administrative details’ such as page and volume numbering do no qualify under the category. The supply of information to a government institution on a confidential basis, while a relevant factor, will not be determinative, as a third party cannot trump the rights conferred by the Act: Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council v Canada (Minister of National Revenue) [2003] FC 1037.

262

Access to Information Act s 24. The courts have said that it was intended that the invocation of provisions in other statutes to limit disclosure was intended to be as restrictive as possible: Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Immigration Appeal Board) [1988] 3 FC 477.

263

Access to Information Act ss 16.1 - 16.5.

264

Access to Information Act s 20(1)(c). The courts have treated claims for this exemption with circumspection, requiring real evidence to support the reasonable expectation and not just surmise: Burns Meats Ltd v Canada (Minister of Agriculture) (1987) 14 FTR 137; Glaxo Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare) (1992) 41 CPR (3d) 176; Cyanamid Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) (1992) 45 CPR (3d) 390; Prud’homme v Canada (Canadian International Development Agency) (1994) 85 FTR 302; Matol Botanical International Inc v Canada (Minister of National Health & Welfare) (1994) 84 FTR 168; Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [2001] FCT 556; Brookfield Lepage Johnson Controls Facility Management Services v Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services) [2004] FCA 214.

265

Access to Information Act s 20(1)(d). The courts have required the negotiations to be on foot and for the interference to amount to actual obstruction: Société Gamma Inc v Canada (Secretary of State) (1994) 79 FTR 42; Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd v Canada (Minister of Supply and Services) (1990) 67 DLR (4th) 315.

71

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS 2– 032 Discretionary exemptions There are ten class-based discretionary exemptions. These grant exemption from disclosure for records that contain: (1) Information obtained or prepared by listed investigative bodies.266 (2) Information on techniques or plans for investigations.267 (3) Trade secrets or valuable financial, commercial, scientific or technical information belonging to the Government of Canada268 or to various government-related agencies.269 (4) Advice or recommendations developed by or for a government institution or a minister of the Crown.270 (5) Any account of governmental consultations or deliberations in which government employees or a minister participates.271 (6) Government negotiation plans.272 (7) Government personnel or organisational plans.273 (8) Solicitor-client privileged information.274 266

Access to Information Act s 16(1)(a).

267

Access to Information Act s 16(1)(b). For an example of its application, see Rubin v Canada (Solicitor General) (1986) 1 FTR 157.

268

Access to Information Act s 18(a).

269

Access to Information Act s 18.1.

270

Access to Information Act s 21(1)(a). As to the meaning of ‘advice or recommendations’, see: Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Industry) [2002] 1 FC 421. There is an exception where the record relates to a decision that is made in the exercise of a discretionary power or an adjudicative function and that affects the rights of a person: Access to Information Act s 21(2). Factual information falls outside the exemption: Canadian Council of Christian Charities v Canada (Minister of Finance) [1999] 4 FC 245; Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of the Environment) [2007] 3 FCR 125.

271

Access to Information Act s 21(1)(b). There is an exception where the account relates to a decision that is made in the exercise of a discretionary power or an adjudicative function and that affects the rights of a person: Access to Information Act s 21(2). The courts have not inquired into the reasons for invoking this exemption: provided that the record answers the description, that will suffice: Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission [1986] 3 FC 413; Re Rubin and President of CMHC (1987) 36 DLR (4th) 22. Factual information falls outside the exemption: Canadian Council of Christian Charities v Canada (Minister of Finance) [1999] 4 FC 245; Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of the Environment) [2007] 3 FCR 125.

272

Access to Information Act s 21(1)(c). There is an exception where the record relates to a decision that is made in the exercise of a discretionary power or an adjudicative function and that affects the rights of a person: Access to Information Act s 21(2).

273

Access to Information Act s 21(1)(d). There is an exception where the record relates to a decision that is made in the exercise of a discretionary power or an adjudicative function and that affects the rights of a person: Access to Information Act s 21(2).

274

Access to Information Act s 23. The common law test of privilege is applied, including concepts of waiver: Weiler v Canada (Minister of Justice) [1991] 3 FC 617; Wells v Canada (Minister of Transport) (1995) 63 CPR (3d) 201; Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v Canadian Museum of Nature (1995) 63 CPR (3d) 449; Canadian Jewish Congress v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1996] 1 FC 268; Stevens v Canada (Prime Minister) [1998] 4 FC 89; Sheldon Blank & Gateway Industries v Canada (Minister for Environment) [2001] FCA 374 (whether privilege applies to documents incorporated by reference); St Joseph Corp v Canada (Public Works and Government Services) [2002] FCT 274; Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) [2013] FCA 104. Litigation privilege is treated as coming to an end at the conclusion of proceedings: Minister of Justice v Blank [2006] SCC 39, [2006] 2 SCR 319, (2006) 270 DLR (4th) 257. The Supreme Court held that even if the documents were covered by litigation privilege, that would not prevent disclosure of a party’s abuse of process or similar

72

CANADA (9) Information that is likely to be published within 90 days. (9A) Draft internal audit reports of a government institution.275 There are nine injury-based discretionary exemptions. These apply to records the disclosure of which could ‘reasonably be expected’ to cause:276 (10) Injury to the conduct of federal-provincial affairs.277 (11) Injury to the conduct of international affairs, or to the defence of Canada or allied states.278 (12) Injury to law enforcement or conduct of lawful investigations.279 (13) Harm in facilitating the commission of a criminal offence.280 (14) Threat to an individual’s safety.281 (15) Prejudice to the competitive position of government or to interfere with contractual or other negotiations of a government institution.282 (16) Harm in depriving a government researcher of priority of publication.283 (17) Injury to the financial or economic interests of Canada or of a government institution.284 (18) Prejudice to the use of audits or tests.285 2– 033 Appeals and enforcement There is a two-tiered review process. Applicants have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner about an institution’s handling of their request.286 Following an investigation blameworthy conduct. 275

Access to Information Act s 22.1. But only for 15 years after its creation and not once the final report has been published.

276

Access to Information Act s 26.

277

Access to Information Act s 14.

278

Access to Information Act s 15. This includes information relating to military strategy, weapons, military deployment, or intelligence. It also includes diplomatic correspondence and cryptographic systems. The courts have shown themselves comparatively deferential to respondent claims of exemption under defence grounds: Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [1990] 3 FC 22; X v Canada (Minister of National Defence) (1992) 58 FTR 93; X v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [1992] 1 FC 77.

279

Access to Information Act s 16(1)(c). The courts have required that the respondent identify a particular investigation that would be prejudiced, and declined to uphold a refusal to disclose upon an assertion that investigations generally would be prejudiced: Rubin v Canada (Clerk of the Privy Council) [1993] 2 FC 391 [1994] 2 FC 707 (1996) 179 NR 320, SCC; Information Commissioner v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [2002] FCA 270 (rejecting ‘chilling effect’ argument).

280

Access to Information Act s 16(2).

281

Access to Information Act s 17.

282

Access to Information Act s 18(b).

283

Access to Information Act s 18(c).

284

Access to Information Act s 18(d). This does not extend to information that would result in an increase in legitimate claims for deductions under tax legislation: Canadian Council of Christian Charities v Canada (Minister of Finance) [1999] 4 FC 245.

285

Access to Information Act s 22. For an example, see Bombardier v Canada (Public Service Commission) (1990) 44 FTR 39.

286

Access to Information Act s 30. There is a 60 day time limit: s 31.

73

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS and report by the Commissioner to the head of the institution, both applicant and Information Commissioner have a right to seek a review of a denial of access in the Federal Court of Canada.287 Third parties may also apply to the Federal Court in order to prevent disclosure of a record.288 The appeal to the Federal Court is an appeal on judicial review grounds.289 The Court is entitled to examine any record in dispute290 and it is normally accepted practice to allow counsel for an applicant to see the disputed documents to enable the case to be properly heard, but on an undertaking not to disclose them to the client.291

6.

REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

2– 034 Introduction In Ireland, the first proposal to provide a right for access to official information came from a private member’s Bill in 1985. It received little support and matters remained there until late 1994 when the Fine Gael/Labour Party made a commitment to introduce access legislation as part of their programme for government. The Freedom of Information Act 1997 was passed on 21 April 1997 and came into operation on 21 April 1998.292 Significant amendments were effected in 2003, which generally increased the ability of public bodies to claim exemption both 287

Access to Information Act ss 41 and 42. There must be a denial of access, so that if the institution claims that it has no documents, the applicant has no right of appeal; a court will not intervene where there is mere assertion that documents are held: Creighton v Canada (Superintendent of Financial Institutions) [1990] FCJ No 353, QL (FCTD); Sheldon Blank & Gateway Industries Ltd v Canada (Minister of Environment) [2001] FCA 374. The appeal is against the refusal to grant access, not the Information Commissioner’s review: Bellemare v Canada (Attorney-General) [2000] FCT 429. However, the Court may properly take into account the Commissioner’s views: Canadian Council of Christian Charities v Canada (Minister of Finance) [1999] 4 FC 245; Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice) [2009] FC 1221. As to an institution’s ability to invoke for the first time an exemption during the appeal process, see: Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of National Defence) [1999] FCJ No 522, QL FCA.

288

Access to Information Act s 44. A third party can invoke s 19 on a s 44 review: Heinz Co of Canada Ltd v AttorneyGeneral [2006] 1 SCR 441, 2006 SCC 13.

289

Canadian Jewish Congress v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1996] 1 FC 268. The role of the Court is more limited where the exemption relied on turns on the head of a governmental institution reasonably believing that disclosure will result in an identified harm: X v Canada (Minister of National Defence) (1992) 58 FTR 93.

290

Access to Information Act s 46. The purpose of this provision is to enable the Court to have the information and material necessary to ensure that the discretion given to the administrative head has been exercised within proper limits and on proper principles: Rubin v Canada (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp) [1989] 1 FC 265; see also Canada (Minister of Environment) v Canada (Information Commissioner) [2000] FCJ No 480, QL FCA. Protection against disclosure by the Court is given in s 47.

291

Maislin Industries Ltd v Minister for Industry, Trade & Commerce [1984] 1 FC 939 (TD); Robertson v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1987) 13 FTR 120 (FCTD); Hunter v Canada (Consumer and Corporate Affairs) [1991] 3 FC 186 (CA); Bland v Canada (National Capital Commission) [1991] 3 FC 325 (TD); Sheldon Blank & Gateway Industries Ltd v Canada (Minister of the Environment) [1999] FCJ No 571, QL (FCTD). Cross-examination of deponents of affidavits in support of exemptions is not normally allowed: X v Canada (Minister of National Defence) (1992) 58 FTR 93 (FCTD).

292

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 1(2). In relation to local authorities and health boards, the Act came into force on 21 October 1998. Its significance was described by the Supreme Court in Sheedy v Information Commissioner [2005] IESC 35 in these terms: ‘The passing of the Freedom of Information Act constituted a legislative development of major importance. By it, the Oireachtas took a considered and deliberate step which dramatically alters the administrative assumptions and culture of centuries. It replaces the presumption of secrecy with one of openness. It is designed to open up the workings of government and administration to scrutiny. It is not designed simply to satisfy the appetite of the media for stories. It is for the benefit of every citizen. It lets light in to the offices and filing cabinets of our rulers.’

74

REPUBLIC OF IRELAND from disclosing records and from having to confirm or deny the holding of records.293 2– 035 Scope of the right Section 6(1) of the Act gives every person294 a right of access to any ‘record’295 ‘held’296 by a ‘public body’.297 Certain records are, however, taken entirely outside the operation of the Act. These are termed298 ‘exempt records’ and include: — most records held by a court or tribunal other than those of an administrative nature;299 — records held or created by the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, or their offices, other than those of a general administrative character;300 — records of the Ombudsman, and records relating to audits, to the President, or to any private papers of a member of either House of the Oireachtas;301 — records revealing the source of information relating to criminal law enforcement;302 and 293

Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003. This Act effected amendments to the definition of ‘record’; allowed access to personal information that predated the commencement of the Freedom of Information Act 1997; strengthened the provisions relating to the refusal to confirm or deny the existence of a record answering the terms of a request; converted the protection of records relating to meetings of Government from discretionary to mandatory; extended the non-disclosure period of records relating to meetings of Government from 5 to 10 years; generally widened the scope of the exemptions. The net effect of the amendments is to make the Freedom of Information Act 1997 the most restrictive of the comparative jurisdictions so far as a person’s right of access to official information is concerned, notwithstanding the words in the long title of the Act. The High Court in Deely v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 91 and prior to the amendments, had described the Act as being ‘on any view, a piece of legislation independent in existence, forceful in its aim and liberal in outlook and philosophy.’

294

‘Person’ is defined in the Interpretation Act 1937 to include a body corporate. The long title of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 suggests that the Act is principally intended to be for ‘members of the public’ rather than companies.

295

‘Record’ is defined to include any memorandum, book, plan, map, drawing, diagram, pictorial or graphic work or other document, any photograph, film or recording (whether of sound or images or both), any form in which data is held, any other form (including machine-readable form) or thing in which information is held or stored manually, mechanically or electronically: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 2(1).

296

The phrase ‘held by a public body’ is defined to include a record under the control of a public body: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 2(5)(a). It also extends to records in the possession of a person who is providing a service for a public body under a contract for services, provided that the records relate to the service: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 6(9). ‘Control’ suggests ‘a degree of authority/dominion/management of the records rather than mere access to the records’: Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment v Information Commissioner [2006] IEHC 39.

297

Public bodies are listed in the First Schedule and include local authorities, health boards, governmental departments, various bodies and organisations. The Act does not cover the police force, schools, universities, voluntary hospitals, nor various government agencies such as the Health and Safety Executive nor commercial state-sponsored bodies such as Aer Lingus. It only applies to a limited extent to the state broadcaster: RTE v Information Commissioner [2004] IEHC 113.

298

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 2(1).

299

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 46(1)(a).

300

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 46(1)(b).

301

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 46(1)(c)–(e). These are also picked up by the second limb of the definition of ‘exempt record’ in s 2(1).

302

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 46(1)(f).

75

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS — records otherwise available to members of the public.303 With two exceptions, the right of access applies only to records created after the commencement of the Act.304 The Act makes limited provision for the giving of assistance to people who seek access to information.305 Under the Act, each public body must publish a ‘reference book’ setting out its functions and duties, the classes of records held by it, together with certain information in relation to the making of a request for access to records.306 In addition to these rights, the Act grants individuals the right to require amendment of incorrect government records containing personal information concerning them.307 2– 036 The request A request is normally to be made in writing and must be adequately particularised.308 The reason for the request is irrelevant to the entitlement to obtain access.309 A request that is frivolous or vexatious or which would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of the other work of the public body concerned need not be answered.310 A request need not be answered if the required fee has not been paid.311 2– 037 The response The public body is required to take reasonable steps to ascertain the location of records answering the terms of the request.312 If the public body does not hold records answering the terms of the request but actually or constructively knows that another public body does, the 303

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 46(2). This does not extend to information available under the Data Protection Act 1988: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 46(3).

304

Freedom of Information Act 1997. The first exception is where earlier records are needed in order to understand post-commencement records: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 6(5)(a). The second exception is in relation to records containing personal information relating to the person making the request: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 6(5)(b). As to the meaning of the latter, see EH v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 182, where it was held that the record could constitute personal information about the requester even though the requester is not named in the record.

305

Freedom of Information Act 1997 ss 7(7) and 10(2).

306

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 15. In addition, internal guidelines on the making of any decisions by a public body must be published: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 16. Apart from s 16(3) no express provision is made for any sanction for non-compliance with s 15 or 16. The Information Commissioner is, however, given the power to examine practices and procedures adopted by public bodies for the purposes of compliance with the Act: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 36(1).

307

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 17. Personal information can include records relating to a subject matter in which the applicant has a real and substantial interest, such as proceedings before a committee of the medical council: EH v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 182.

308

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 7(1). The request must specify the form of access sought.

309

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 8(4). Accordingly, the public body cannot impose restrictions on the purpose for which released records may be used or persons to whom they may be shown: EH v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 58, [2001] 2 IR 463.

310

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 10(1).

311

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 10(1)(f). The amount of the fee is set by Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 47. Fees can be waived: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 47(5) and (6).

312

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 10(1). Where it is estimated that the cost of search and retrieval is likely to exceed £50.80, the public body is entitled to seek a deposit and need not commence the search until such time as the deposit is paid: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 47(7).

76

REPUBLIC OF IRELAND request must be transferred to that latter public body within two weeks of the receipt of the request.313 Within four weeks of receipt of the request, the public body must notify the applicant of the decision on the application, together with the fees that must be paid in order to obtain access.314 Failure to notify within the prescribed period is deemed to constitute a refusal.315 If the decision involves a refusal, reasons must be given together with a statement of appeal rights.316 If the public body decides to give access to a record, it can do so in any number of ways.317 Where part of a record contains exempt material but the remainder does not, the public authority must give disclosure to as much of the non-exempt material as is practicable.318 The public body can, in a wide range of circumstances, refuse to confirm or deny that it holds records answering the terms of a request.319 The Act specifically provides for discretionary disclosure.320 2– 038 Exemptions generally Certain exemptions are mandatory, the remainder are discretionary. Some of the exemptions are prejudice-based exemptions, others are purely class based. The likelihood of harm needed to engage the prejudice-based exemptions varies from ‘could reasonably be expected’ to occasion the identified harm,321 to ‘would be likely’ to occasion the identified harm,322 to ‘could’ occasion the identified harm.323 Approximately half of the exemptions include a provision that disapplies the exemption where, in the opinion of the head of the public body, the public interest would on balance be better served by granting rather than by refusing the request for access.324 The Act provides for conclusive certificates in relation to: records recording the 313

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 7(3) and (6). Where the requested body holds some, but not all, of the records answering the terms of the request and the public body actually or constructively knows that another public body holds other records, the first public body must so notify the applicant: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 7(4) and (6).

314

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 8(1). The period can be extended where the records involved are voluminous or where there have been other requests for the same records: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 9(1).

315

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 41.

316

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 8(2).

317

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 12(1). Generally speaking, the public body must give access in the form sought by the applicant: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 12(2). The public body cannot impose restrictions on the purpose for which released records may be used or the persons to whom they may be shown: EH v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 58, [2001] 2 IR 463.

318

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 13(1). The resultant redacted record must not be misleading: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 13(2).

319

Where to do so would be prejudicial to government business, s 19(5); where to do so would be prejudicial to parliamentary or court business, s 22(2); where to do so would be prejudicial to law enforcement, s 23(2); where to do so would be prejudicial to security, defence or international relations, s 24(3); where to do so would reveal confidential information, s 26(4); where to do so would reveal commercially sensitive information, s 27(4); and where to do so would reveal personal information about someone other than the applicant, s 28(5A).

320

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 6(8). It is not clear whether a mandatory exemption represents a prohibition of access by law.

321

Freedom of Information Act 1997 ss 21(1), 23(1), 24(1), 27(1)(b), 30(1)(b), 31(1) and 31(2)(n).

322

Freedom of Information Act 1997 ss 26(1)(a) and 30(1)(a).

323

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 27(1)(b)–c).

324

Freedom of Information Act 1997 ss 20(3), 21(2), 23(3)(b), 26(3), 27(3), 28(5) and 31(3). The language of these

77

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS deliberations of a public body; records whose access could be expected to prejudice law enforcement, investigations, public safety, domestic or national security, defence and international relations; and records containing certain confidential information or that might reveal the identity of certain informants.325 The effect of a conclusive certificate is to remove the right of merit review in relation to the decision to treat the record as exempt.326 Where the information included in a record to which access has been sought includes information obtained in confidence, commercially sensitive information or personal information, a third party to whom the information relates is given the opportunity to make submissions on the disclosure of it.327 In such cases the onus is upon the public body to justify non-disclosure.328 The courts construe the exemptions restrictively.329 2– 039 Specific exemptions There are 16 heads of exemption, half of which are mandatory and half of which are discretionary. The public body must refuse access where: (1) the record has been or is proposed to be submitted to the Government for consideration by a Minister and was created for that purpose, or the record contains information for use at a meeting of the Government or consists of a communication between two or more members of the Government relating to the same;330 (2) the record contains or reveals a statement made at a meeting of the Government;331 (3) the record would be exempt from production in a court on the grounds of legal professional privilege; disclosure of the record would constitute a contempt of court; the record consists of the private papers of a member of the European Parliament, a member of a local authority or of a health board; or the record consists of the opinions, advice, recommendations or results of consultations considered by either House of the Oireachtas or its committees;332 exemptions suggests that in so far as there may be an onus in relation to the balancing exercise, it may be said nominally to lie on the applicant: if the head of the public body has no particular view whether the public interest would be better served by granting or refusing the request, the exemption remains engaged. 325

Freedom of Information Act 1997 ss 20(1A) and 25.

326

There remains the more limited right to challenge the issue of the certificate on a point of law: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 42(2). See also the limited right of review under Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 25(7) and (8).

327

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 29. A more detailed comparative treatment of third party rights of consultation and of ‘reverse FOI’ is given at §11– 043.

328

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 34(12)(b).

329

Minister for Agriculture and Food v Information Commissioner [2000] 1 IR 309 at 319; Sheedy v Information Commissioner [2005] 2 IR 272 at 275; Health Service Executive v Information Commissioner [2008] IEHC 298; Rotunda Hospital v Information Commissioner [2009] IEHC 315; P v Information Commissioner [2009] IEHC 574.

330

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 19(1). Factual material is excluded and the exemption becomes inapplicable 10 years after the decision is made to which the record relates. The public body can refuse to confirm or deny the existence of any record falling within the terms of the exemption if it thinks that to do either would be contrary to the public interest: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 19(5). The exemption will apply even if the record was not actually submitted to the Cabinet, provided that it was created for that purpose: Minister for Education & Science v Information Commissioner [2008] IEHC 279.

331

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 19(2).

332

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 22(1). The public body can refuse to confirm or deny the existence of any

78

REPUBLIC OF IRELAND the record contains information: obtained for intelligence purposes; relating to the security forces; revealing diplomatic communications; or revealing confidential communications from foreign state organisations;333 (5) the record contains information given to the public body in confidence or the disclosure of which would constitute a breach of confidence;334 (6) the record contains trade secrets, financial, etc information or contractual negotiations;335 (7) disclosure would be of personal information not relating to the applicant;336 and (8) disclosure of the information is prohibited by another statute.337 The public body may refuse access where: (9) the record contains matter relating to the deliberative process of the public body;338 (10) disclosure of the record could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effectiveness of tests, inquiries, audits, etc carried out by a public body or have a significant adverse effect on staff management or disclose a negotiating position;339 (11) the record relates to the appointment or business or proceedings of a tribunal or an inquiry;340 (4)

record falling within the terms of the exemption if it thinks that to do either would be contrary to the public interest: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 22(2). For the purposes of the contempt provision, any disclosure will suffice: EH v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 58, [2001] 2 IR 463. 333

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 24(2). The relevant minister may issue a conclusive certificate if he takes the view that the exemption applies. The public body can refuse to confirm or deny the existence of any record falling within the terms of the exemption if it thinks that to do either would be contrary to the public interest: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 24(3).

334

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 26(1). This exemption is disapplied where the public interest is better served by disclosure than by non-disclosure. The public body can refuse to confirm or deny the existence of any record falling within the terms of the exemption if it thinks that to do either would be contrary to the public interest: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 26(4). This will be satisfied where the provider and the recipient regarded it as being confidential at the time of receipt: Gannon v Information Commissioner [2007] IEHC 17; National Maternity Hospital v Information Commissioner [2007] 3 IR 643; Health Service Executive v Information Commissioner [2008] IEHC 298; Rotunda Hospital v Information Commissioner [2009] IEHC 315.

335

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 27(1). This exemption is disapplied where the public interest is better served by disclosure than by non-disclosure. The public body can refuse to confirm or deny the existence of any record falling within the terms of the exemption if it thinks that to do either would be contrary to the public interest: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 27(4).

336

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 28(1). This exemption is disapplied where the public interest is better served by disclosure than by non-disclosure. The public body can refuse to confirm or deny the existence of any record falling within the terms of the exemption if it thinks that to do either would be contrary to the public interest: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 28(5A). The exemption was considered in: Health Service Executive v Information Commissioner [2008] IEHC 298; Rotunda Hospital v Information Commissioner [2009] IEHC 315; P v Information Commissioner [2009] IEHC 574.

337

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 32.

338

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 20(1). Factual and statistical material is excluded from the scope of the exemption. The exemption is disapplied where the public interest is better served by disclosure than by nondisclosure: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 20(2). The relevant minister may issue a conclusive certificate if he takes the view that the exemption applies.

339

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 21(1). This exemption is disapplied where the public interest is better served by disclosure than by non-disclosure. This was considered in Minister for Education and Science v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 116 in relation to a request for education league tables.

340

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 22(1A).

79

THE COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS (12) disclosure of the record could reasonably be expected to prejudice law enforcement and investigations or matters of internal security, or to reveal the name of a police informer;341 (13) disclosure of the record could reasonably be expected to adversely affect the security or defence of the Republic of Ireland or its international relations;342 (14) disclosure might be prejudicial to the health of the applicant;343 (15) disclosure would reveal information about research in progress carried out by or on behalf of a public body;344 or (16) disclosure would have a serious adverse effect upon the financial interests of the state, on the ability to manage the economy, or might disturb business or could result in an unwarranted benefit or loss to a person or to a class of persons.345 2– 040 Appeals and enforcement The first stage of appeal is a merit review by the ‘branch head’ of the public body to whom the request is made.346 The second stage of appeal is a merit review by the Information Commissioner.347 The onus of proof lies upon the public body to justify the decision not to grant access.348 A third party who would be affected by a disclosure will normally be entitled to have his views taken into account.349 An appeal to the High Court on a point of law lies from a decision of the Information Commissioner350 or from the decision to issue a conclusive 341

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 23(1). The public body can refuse to confirm or deny the existence of any record falling within the terms of the exemption if it thinks that to do either would be contrary to the public interest: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 23(2). A conclusive certificate may be issued in respect of this head of exemption: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 25. This exemption is disapplied where the public interest is better served by disclosure than by non-disclosure.

342

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 24(1). The public body can refuse to confirm or deny the existence of any record falling within the terms of the exemption if it thinks that to do either would be contrary to the public interest: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 24(3). A conclusive certificate may be issued in respect of this head of exemption: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 25.

343

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 28(3).

344

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 30.

345

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 31. This exemption is disapplied where the public interest is better served by disclosure than by non-disclosure.

346

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 14(1). The review decision must be made within three weeks of the application for review having been received: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 14(4). Failure to respond in that time is deemed to constitute a refusal: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 41.

347

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 34. The Information Commissioner can rely on exemptions not invoked by the public body: Minister for Education and Science v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 116; cf Minister for Agriculture and Food v Information Commissioner [1999] IEHC 66, [2000] 1 IR 309, [2001] 1 ILRM 40. The Information Commissioner also has power to review a decision to defer access; a decision to grant access in the face of opposition from a third party under s 29; a decision to give access in one particular form, rather than another. The Information Commissioner has inquisitorial powers: Freedom of Information Act 1997 ss 35 and 37. He can refer questions of law to the High Court: Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 42(5).

348

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 34(12).

349

South Western Area Health Board v Information Commissioner [2005] IEHC 177, [2005] 2 IR 547.

350

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 42(1). The limited nature of such an appeal was considered by the High Court in Deely v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 91, [2001] 3 IR 349; Sheedy v Information Commissioner [2005] 2 IR 272; Rotunda Hospital v Information Commissioner [2009] IEHC 315; Kruse v Information Commissioner [2009] IEHC 286.

80

REPUBLIC OF IRELAND certificate.351 The Act provides for various enforcement provisions,352 as well as granting immunity from legal proceedings for the disclosure of information pursuant to the Act.353

351

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 42(2).

352

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 37.

353

Freedom of Information Act 1997 s 45.

81

CHAPTER 3

The Influence of the European Convention on Human Rights etc Chapter 3 – The Influence of the European Convention on Human Rights etc Richard Clayton QC & Estelle Dehon Page 1. THE INFLUENCE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3– 001 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 2. STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE: ARTICLE 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3– 002 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3– 003 Medical records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 3– 004 Police etc records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 3– 005 Third-party information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 3– 006 Public information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 3. STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE: ARTICLE 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3– 007 Early jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3– 008 Later jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 3– 009 The emerging jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 3– 010 Access to official information by those acting as social watchdogs . . . . . . . . . . 92 3– 011 Access to official information required for research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4. STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE: OTHER ARTICLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 3– 012 Article 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 3– 013 Other articles of the ECHR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 5. INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3– 014 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3– 015 American Convention on Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 6. IMPACT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 3– 016 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 3– 017 Article 8: personal information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 3– 018 Article 8: environmental information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 3– 019 Article 8: police etc information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 3– 020 Article 10: inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 3– 021 Article 10: the Press . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 3– 022 The impact upon the Freedom of Information Act: introduction . . . . . . . . . 100 3– 023 The impact upon the Freedom of Information Act: practical . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 3– 024 The Human Rights Act 1998 and procedural fairness before the First-tier Tribunal and other bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

1. 82

THE INFLUENCE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 ON

THE INFLUENCE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 ON INFORMATION RIGHTS

INFORMATION RIGHTS 3– 001 Introduction Although the principal human rights instruments do not directly address the right of access to officially-held information, a consensus is developing that the right to freedom of expression confers a right of access to information held by emanations of the state.1 Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights2 includes the ‘freedom to seek, receive and impart information’, which has been interpreted to embrace a right of access to information held by public bodies.3 Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights4 is framed in narrower terms than article 19 of the ICCPR, and includes the freedom to receive and impart information.5 There is an emerging line of ECtHR jurisprudence that, in certain circumstances, the notions of ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘freedom to receive information’ embrace a right of access to information held by emanations of the state, at least where disclosure is in the public interest.6 The approach taken by the ECtHR has been to distinguish personal information7 and non-personal information, to recognise a right to the former under article 8 only and, more recently, to recognise a right to the latter under article 10 only. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has interpreted the right to freedom of thought and expression protected by article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights8 to include 1

See, for example, Report to the General Assembly by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (A/68/362, 4 September 2013) at [38]; Council of Europe Report Implementation of the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on measures to promote the respect of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights CM(2013)29 (3 April 2013) at p 3; Human Rights Committee General Comment 34 CCPR/C/GC/34 (12 September 2011) at [18].

2

Article 19 of the ICCRP, para 2 provides that: ‘Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression: this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of his choice.’ This is based on Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

3

§3– 014 below.

4

Article 10 of the ECHR provides: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority or impartiality of the judiciary.

5

In the late 1970s a draft additional protocol to the ECHR was discussed which expressly extended the right to freedom of expression protected under article 10 of the ECHR to include the freedom to seek information. This draft protocol failed to secure widespread support and was abandoned. See Malinverni, ‘Freedom of Information in the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ (1983) 4 Human Rights Law Journal 443.

6

See §§3– 010-3– 011 below. See also C J S Knight ‘Article 10 and a Right of Access to Information’ [2013] PL 468.

7

‘Personal information’ being information that relates to the person seeking the information. This can include environmental information where the requester lives in the environment to which the information relates.

8

Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, entitled ‘Freedom of Thought and Expression’,

83

CHAPTER 3 — THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC a general right to information held by governments.9 A right of access to official information has, in certain contexts, also been recognised under the rubric of other human rights: in particular, the right to a fair trial protected by article 6 of the ECHR and the right to life protected by article 2 of the ECHR.

2.

STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE: ARTICLE 8

3– 002 Introduction Whilst article 8 of the ECHR10 does not provide for a generalised right of access to official information, in certain circumstances article 8 imposes on the State authorities a positive obligation to supply information of particular significance to an individual or group of individuals.11 Early case law focused on the right of access to personal information (ie information relating to the person seeking it). In Gaskin v United Kingdom,12 the applicant successfully relied upon article 8 of the ECHR in challenging a local authority’s refusal to supply information held relating to him.13 The applicant had been fostered as a child. He provides: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice. 2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: 1. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or 2. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. 3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio, broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence. 5. Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law. The Convention was adopted by the nations of the Americas in 1969 and came into operation on 18 July 1978. As at the date of writing, 24 of the 35 members of the Organization of American States are parties to the Convention. 9

See §3– 015.

10

Article 8 of the ECHR provides: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the-prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

11

Information encompasses images and photographs: Von Hannover v Germany (no 2) [2012] ECHR 228, (2012) 55 EHRR 15, [2012] EMLR 16, 32 BHRC 527 at [96].

12

Gaskin v United Kingdom (App no 10454/83) (1989) 12 EHRR 36, [1990] 1 FLR 167.

13

Similarly R (Rose) v Secretary of State for Health [2002] EWHC 1593, [2002] 2 FLR 962, [2002] 3 FCR 731, [2002] UKHRR 1329, where the Claimant, who had been born by artificial insemination, sought judicial review of

84

STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE: ARTICLE 8 sought access to his own records, which included contributions from a number of professionals, some of whom objected to disclosure. The European Court of Human Rights concluded that the right to access his file fell within the ambit of article 8 of the ECHR and that the local authority’s blanket refusal to disclose the applicant’s records unjustifiably interfered with his right.14 Following Gaskin, the United Kingdom Government enacted legislation providing access to one’s own ‘personal data.’15 This right is now embodied within the Data Protection Act 1998.16 The existence of a right to appeal to an independent authority against the nondisclosure of certain records under the Data Protection Act 1998 has been held to be sufficient to discharge the State’s positive obligation to supply personal information under article 8 of the ECHR.17 The Court has left open the question whether article 8 includes a right for an individual to prevent an emanation of the state imparting confidential information.18 3– 003 Medical records The European Court takes a particular approach in relation to access to an individual’s own medical records. In KH v Slovakia19 the Court held that the right of effective access to information concerning a person’s own health and reproductive status was a positive right protected by article 8. The positive obligation in such cases extended to making available to

decisions of the Secretary of State and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which refused her requests for access to non identifying information and, where possible, identifying information in respect of anonymous sperm donors and for the establishment of a voluntary contact register. In partly granting the application, the Court held that respect for private and family life under art 8 required that persons should be able to establish details of their identity as human beings. This included establishing their origins and the opportunity to understand them. It also embraced their physical and social identity. The Court held that this included the right to obtain information concerning a biological parent who inevitably had contributed to the identity of the child. 14

Contrast Odièvre v France (App no 42326/98) (2004) 38 EHRR 43, where the Grand Chamber concluded ten votes to seven that there was no positive obligation under art 8 to disclose to an applicant the identity by her mother who had, under domestic law, been permitted to give birth anonymously. The majority of the Grand Chamber held that, unlike in Gaskin, there were competing art 8 rights in issue: the child had a right to know where she came from, but the mother also had a right under art 8 to remain ‘anonymous in order to protect her health by giving birth in appropriate medical conditions’ (at [44]). The majority concluded that the balance struck between those competing interests by France was within the state’s margin of appreciation.

15

The Access to Health Records Act 1990. Although the Data Protection Act 1984 s 21 provided for a right of access to personal data, it was confined to data recorded in a form in which it could be processed by equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose: it thus did not include paper records. The Data Protection Act 1984 did not have its origins in a European Directive.

16

Data Protection Act 1998, s 7. The definition of ‘data’ in the Data Protection Act 1998 is significantly wider than it was in the Data Protection Act 1984. The Data Protection Act 1998 repealed most of the Access to Health Records Act 1990.

17

See MG v United Kingdom (App no 39393/98) [2002] 3 FCR 289, (2003) 36 EHRR 3, 13 BHRC 179 (however, the European Court found a violation of art 8 of the ECHR from 1995 to 1 March 2000 prior to the coming into force of the DPA); cf Martin v United Kingdom (App no 27533/95) (1996) 21 EHRR CD112, where the European Commission of Human Rights declared inadmissible an application under art 8 of the ECHR for records relating to an intermittent period of mental health treatment for four years. The Court in MG distinguished Martin on the basis that, in MG the requested social service records contained the principal source of information for a significant part of the applicant's formative years, whereas the records in Martin were for a limited and intermittent period.

18

Gillberg v Sweden [2012] ECHR 569, 34 BHRC 247 at [64].

19

(App no 32881/04) (2009) 49 EHRR 34. This concerned a group of women who, through their lawyers, tried to obtain copies of their medical files concerning their childbirths.

85

CHAPTER 3 — THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC an individual a physical copy of his or her medical records.20 3– 004 Police etc records The ECHR has also considered a number of cases concerning the individual’s right to access the information about him held secretly by police or security services. In Leander v Sweden,21 the applicant sought access under domestic legislation to a secret file containing information relating to himself which had been consulted by his employer, a Naval Museum, in deciding what position the applicant could hold. The ECtHR held that the state’s refusal to allow Mr Leander to see the information amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his private life, as guaranteed by article 8(1).22 The court went on to find that the aim of the legislative regime by which a file on security risks could be maintained, including the extensive suite of safeguards against abuse, meant that the interference with Mr Leander’s article 8(1) right could not be considered disproportionate. On that basis there was no violation of article 8.23 In Rotaru v Romania, however, the Grand Chamber held that the storing of information about the appellant by the Romanian secret police, and their use of it, coupled with a refusal to allow the applicant an opportunity to refute it, breached article 8, as the system employed by the Romanian secret police was not in accordance with law, nor did it have proper safeguards or supervision procedures.24 The Grand Chamber held that public information (such as publication of political pamphlets or a criminal conviction) can fall within the scope of private life where it is systematically collected and stored in files held by authorities, particularly where the information concerns a person’s distant past.25 3– 005 Third-party information 20

At [47]-[56].

21

(App no 9248/81) (1987) 9 EHRR 433.

22

At [48].

23

See also Haralambie v Romania (App no 21737/03) ECHR 21 January 2010 (only available in French), in which the Court emphasised that public authorities had a duty to provide an effective procedure for obtaining access to personal files and found a breach of art 8 where the applicant had been unable to obtain his personal security files within a reasonable time; Segerstedt-Wiberg v Sweden (App no 62332/00) (2007) 44 EHRR 2 at [69]-[104], where the Court concluded that the state’s refusal of full access to a national security police register when the state legitimately feared that the provision of such information might jeopardise the efficacy of a secret surveillance system designed to protect national security and combat terrorism was permissible under art 8; Brinks v Netherlands (App no 9940/04) (2005) 41 EHRR SE5, where the Court declared inadmissible a complaint by an academic for access to all information possibly held on him by the Dutch Secret Service.

24

Rotaru v Romania (App no 28341/95) 8 BHRC 449 at [45]-[46] and [59]-[62]. A concurring judgment, criticising the ‘national security’ justification for indiscriminate storing of information relating to individuals’ private lives, was given by the President of the Grand Chamber and concurred in by six further judges.

25

At [43]. See also: Copland v United Kingdom (App no 62617/00) (2007) 45 EHRR 37 at [43]-[44]; S v United Kingdom (App nos 30562/04 and 30566/04) [2008] ECHR 1581; but compare Chief Constable of Humberside Police & ors v IC and SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1079, [2010] 1 WLR 1136, where the Court of Appeal was equivocal about whether art 8 was applicable to the retention on the Police National Computer of old criminal convictions (at [50] and [78][81]). The Information Tribunal had explicitly held that processing included retention of information and that retention would breach art 8(1) unless it could be justified: Chief Constable of Humberside and ors v IC, IT, 21 July 2008 at [173]-[180]. The Court of Appeal has, however, been clear that the disclosure of cautions held on the Police National Computer does engage Article 8. In(T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2013] EWCA Civ 25, [2013] 1 WLR 2515 the Court made a declaration of incompatibility, finding that the blanket statutory regime requiring disclosure of old cautions in certain circumstances breached Article 8 (at [33]-[54]).

86

STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE: ARTICLE 8 The European Court has relied on article 8 to support access to information concerning a third party, provided that there is a close relationship between the third party and the person requesting the information. In TP and KM v United Kingdom,26 which concerned information relied upon by a local authority in taking the appellant’s child into protective care, the Grand Chamber held that it was essential that such information be made available to the parent, even where it had not been directly requested. However, that right to information had to be curtailed where required by the interests of the child, and the decision as to what information should be released should be made by a court. 3– 006 Public information Whilst initially it was thought that article 8 of the ECHR was limited to granting a right to information that was about the applicant (eg medical records, adoption records, employment records), the European Court has adopted a broader interpretation and extended the right to access to include environmental information that has an impact on an individual’s private life or home life. In Guerra v Italy,27 the Court concluded that the state authorities were under a positive obligation to collect and disseminate information about the dangers of a local chemical factory to local residents so that they could assess the extent of the risk and take steps to reduce that risk.28 In Roche v United Kingdom29 the Grand Chamber unanimously found a violation of article 8 arising from the Government’s failure to provide an effective and accessible procedure enabling the applicant to have access to all relevant and appropriate information which would allow him to assess any risk to which he may have been exposed during his participation in tests at Porton Down.30 Where there are effective and accessible procedures for obtaining information, then Article 8 may not encompass a broader right of access to information than that provided for by the domestic procedures.31

26

TP and KM v United Kingdom (App no 28945/95) (2002) 34 EHRR 2 at [80]-[82].

27

Guerra v Italy (App no 14967/89) (1998) 26 EHRR 357, 4 BHRC 63 at [56]-[60]. Note that in this case although domestic legislation conferred a right to request information, the applicants had not exercised that right ([O32][O37]). The case was thus concerned with an obligation upon a public authority, on its own motion, to collect and disseminate information.

28

See also: Lopez Ostra v Spain (App no 16798/90) (1995) 20 EHRR 277; McGinley and Egan v United Kingdom (App nos 21825/93 and 23414/94) (1999) 27 EHRR 1, 4 BHRC 421, (1998) 42 BMLR 123, where the court concluded, by a majority of five to four that although there was a positive obligation pursuant to art 8 of the ECHR to supply information about nuclear tests at Christmas Island to individuals present in the area, this obligation was discharged in relation to the applicants by r 6 of the Pensions Appeals Tribunals (Scotland) Rules); Taskin v Turkey (App no 46117/99) (2006) 42 EHRR 50, where the court held that there was a violation of art 8 in relation to lack of information relating to operation of a goldmine using cyanide extraction methods that allegedly threatened the health of local residents.

29

Roche v United Kingdom (App no 32555/96) (2006) 42 EHRR 30, 20 BHRC 99.

30

At [164], the Grand Chamber distinguished the earlier decision in McGinley and Egan v United Kingdom (App no 21825/93) (1999) 27 EHRR 1, 4 BHRC 421, (1998) 42 BMLR 123, on the basis that Mr McGinley and Mr Egan’s search for documents was ‘inextricably bound up with their domestic applications for pensions’, whereas Mr Roche had made numerous attempts to obtain the relevant records independently of any litigation.

31

In Hardy and Maile v United Kingdom (App no 31965/07) (2012) 55 EHRR 28, the Court held that article 8 had been complied with in circumstances where environmental information about the risks arising from the construction and operation of two liquefied natural gas terminals a Milford Haven Harbour had been provided during the planning process, as a result of the requirements of the regulatory regime and through the Information Commissioner (as a result of a request under the Environmental Information Regulations): see [233]-[250].

87

CHAPTER 3 — THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC

3.

STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE: ARTICLE 10

3– 007 Early jurisprudence Article 10 of the ECHR confers on everyone ‘the right to freedom of expression’ and this right expressly includes the right ‘to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference.’ Initially, it appeared that the right would be interpreted broadly to include some form of right of access to information held by States. In X v Federal Republic Germany32 the European Commission on Human Rights stated: it follows from the context in which the right to receive information is mentioned…that it envisages first of all access to general sources of information…the right to receive information may under certain circumstances include a right of access by the interested person to documents which although not generally accessible are of particular importance.33

Subsequent case law from the European Court on Human Rights indicated that article 10 of the ECHR did not form the basis of a generalised right of access to information in circumstances where there was no ‘willing speaker.’ In Leander v Sweden34 the European Court of Human Rights held, in relation to the State’s refusal to reveal secret information: [T]he right to freedom to receive information basically prohibits a Government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him. Article 10 does not, in circumstances such as the present case,35 confer on the individual a right of access to a register containing information on his personal position, nor does it embody an obligation on the Government to impart such information to the individual.36

A similar approach was adopted in Gaskin v United Kingdom37 where the applicant complained that a local authority had refused him access to a case record relating to him created when he was a minor. The Court found that there was no violation of article 10 of the ECHR although

32

X v Federal Republic Germany (App no 8383/78) (1979) 17 DR 227.

33

At 228–229.

34

Leander v Sweden (App no 9248/81) (1987) 9 EHRR 434.

35

‘The circumstances of the case’ are those of a claim made for the freedom to receive information and the circumstances set out in [9]-[17] of the judgment.

36

At [74]. Contrast Brown v Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother [2008] EWCA Civ 56, [2008] 1 WLR 2327 at [41], where the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the question of the extent to which there can be justification for sealing a will in order to give effect to the desire of beneficiaries for privacy (in that case, the Royal family), might ‘engage’ both article 8 and article 10 ECHR. Leander was cited to the Court but was not discussed in the judgment.

37

(1989) 12 EHRR 36, [1990] 1 FLR 167.

88

STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE: ARTICLE 10 it again limited that finding to the particular facts of the case.38 In both Leander39 and Gaskin,40 the information sought related to a specific individual and its disclosure could not be said to be in the wider public interest. The Court restricted its judgments on Article 10 to those cases and did not consider the broader question of a general right of access to non-personal information in the public interest. 3– 008 Later jurisprudence The disclosure of information in the public interest was considered in Guerra v Italy,41 which concerned the collection and dissemination (without a request being made) of information relating to the dangers of a chemical factory. The residents contended that the authorities were obliged under each of articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR to inform them about the hazards of the activity undertaken at the factories and about major accident procedures. The European Commission of Human Rights had expressed the view that both article 8 and article 10 of the ECHR not only placed states under an obligation to make environmental information accessible to the public, but also under a positive obligation to collect, process and disseminate information which, by its very nature, is not directly accessible and which cannot be known to the public unless the authorities act accordingly. However, the European Court, having found a violation of article 8 resulting from the non-dissemination of information,42 considered that article 10 of the ECHR ‘cannot be construed as imposing on a State, in circumstances such as those of the present case, positive obligations to collect and disseminate information of its own motion’.43 The Court distinguished the situation in Guerra from cases concerning the right to receive information as a corollary of the function of the press to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest.44 Article 10 was again briefly considered and held not to be applicable by the Grand Chamber in Roche v United Kingdom,45 which concerned personal 38

However, the European Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to the information sought under art 8 of the ECHR: see §3– 002. The incongruity of this, given that art 8 does not mention ‘information’ whereas art 10 explicitly includes the ‘freedom to receive…information,’ was highlighted by Sir Stephen Sedley in ‘Information as a Human Right’ in J Beatson and Y Cripps (eds), Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information: Essays in Honour of Sir David Williams (Oxford, OUP, 2000) at 245.

39

Leander v Sweden (App no 9248/81) (1987) 9 EHRR 434.

40

Gaskin v United Kingdom (1989) 12 EHRR 36.

41

Guerra v Italy (App no 14967/89) (1998) 26 EHRR 357, 4 BHRC 63. Similarly: Oneryildiz v Turkey (App no 48939/99) (2004) 39 EHRR 12 at [108]. Contrast R (Furness) v Environment Agency [2001] EWHC (Admin) 1058, [2002] Env LR 26.

42

At [60]. See further §3– 006.

43

At [53], citing Leander v Sweden (App no 9248/81) (1987) 9 EHRR 434. Although the concurring opinion of Judge Palm, joined by five others, indicated that in certain circumstances there may be a positive obligation to make available to the public information which by its nature could not otherwise come to the attention of the public. Similarly, in his concurring opinion, Judge Walsh observed that ‘that on the particular facts of this case Article 8 is the more appropriate Article to examine than Article 10. The Convention and its Articles must be construed harmoniously.’ See also the Grand Chamber decision in Roche v United Kingdom (App no 32555/96) (2006) 42 EHRR 30, 20 BHRC 99 where the Grand Chamber, although finding a violation of art 8 ECHR, unanimously concluded (at [172]) that there was no violation of art 10.

44

At [53], citing Observer and Guardian v United Kingdom (App no 13585/88) (1992) 14 EHRR 153 (the ‘Spycatcher’ case) and Thorgeirson v Iceland (App no 13778/88) (1992) ECHR 51. See also Romanenko v Russia (App no 11751/03) [2006] ECHR 877 at [42] and Eerikäinen v Finland (App no 3514/02) [2009] ECHR 255 at [68].

45

Roche v United Kingdom (App no 32555/96) (2006) 42 EHRR 30, 20 BHRC 99, (2006) 42 EHRR 30 at [170]. The

89

CHAPTER 3 — THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC information relating to the effect on the applicant of tests conducted at Porton Down. 3– 009 The emerging jurisprudence There are indications of a broadening of the European Court’s approach to the right to receive information. The first indication came in the admissibility decision of Sdruženi Jihočeské Matky v Czech Republic.46 The Court recognised that the refusal by the Czech authorities to provide the applicant ecological NGO with access to documents regarding a nuclear power station amounted to an interference with the right to receive information under Article 10. After referring to its traditional case law, including Leander,47 Guerra48 and Roche49 and commenting that it was ‘difficult to derive from [art 10] a general right to access to data and documents of an administrative character,’ the Court went on to recognise that the particular refusal in issue was an interference with the applicant’s right to receive information and that it was one that had to be justified under article 10(2).50 In Társaság Szabadságjogokért (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union) v Hungary,51 the Court cited the Matky decision as indicative of a recent advance towards ‘a broader interpretation of the notion of “freedom to receive information” … and thereby towards the recognition of a right of access to information.’52 Társaság concerned the refusal to allow the applicant NGO access to the text of a constitutional complaint challenging amendments to drug-related offences in the Criminal Code. The applicant was active in the field of drug policy. The Court held that, in seeking to publicise the information gathered from the constitutional complaint, the applicant’s activities amounted to an essential element of informed public debate on a matter of public importance. The applicant could therefore be characterised, like the press, as a social ‘watchdog’, and the Constitutional Court’s refusal to provide information in which it had a monopoly amounted to a form of censorship which interfered with article 10(1).53 The Court went on to find that the interference was not justified under article 10(2).54 The above authorities marked the start of a move by the ECHR towards case did not involve a request for any non-personal information. The Court’s treatment of art 8 occupied the bulk of the judgment (from [139]-[169]), with the Court concluding that there had been a violation of art 8 through the state’s non-provision of the information that Mr Roche sought. The Court’s treatment of art 10 was very much shorter (at [170]-[173]). 46

Sdruženi Jihočeské Matky v Czech Republic (App no 19101/03) [2006] ECHR 1205 (French only).

47

Leander v Sweden (App no 9248/81) (1987) 9 EHRR 434.

48

Guerra v Italy (App no 14967/89) (1998) 26 EHRR 357, 4 BHRC 63.

49

Roche v United Kingdom (App no 32555/96) (2006) 42 EHRR 30, 20 BHRC 99, (2006) 42 EHRR 30.

50

The Court held the refusal was justified in the interests of protecting the rights of others (industrial secrets), national security (risk of terrorist attacks) and public health. The Court also held that the request for technical information about the nuclear power station did not reflect a matter of public interest. The application was therefore declared inadmissible. The Court’s reasoning is not easy to discern. Two elements appear to have been important: the appellant NGO needed the information in order to disseminate it as part of its public role in debating the desirability of the nuclear power station; and the information was of the type that could usually be accessed through the Czech law on freedom of information (although the request for access had failed).

51

Társasága Szabadságjogokért (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union) v Hungary (App no 37374/05) [2009] ECHR 618, (2011) 53 EHRR 3.

52

At [35].

53

At [26]-[28].

54

At [36]. In so doing the Court noted that the information sought by the applicant was ‘ready and available’ and

90

STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE: ARTICLE 10 recognising that art 10 confers a right of access to information which, in the public interest, should be disseminated. The move has been confirmed by five decisions since then: Kenedi,55 Gillberg,56 Shapovalov,57 Youth Initiative58 and Austrian Agricultural Land Association.59 This line of authority is especially important for civil society organisations and the media, whose ‘social watchdog’ role has long been endorsed by the Court. The reasoning is that to starve a social watchdog of the official information needed by it to carry out its social watchdog function is to impede its right to freedom of expression, including its ability to impart information and ideas. This line of case-law has particular significance for requests made under FOIA where the public authority invokes non-absolute exemptions, as it may colour the determination of the public interest in disclosure.60 Társaság itself has been recognised as a ‘landmark decision’ by the advisory constitutional law body to the Council of Europe.61 The jurisprudence appears to confine the right to information that is ‘ready and available’ (ie it applies only to recorded information that is held by the public authority).62 Where the public authority has already disclosed sufficient, though not all, information on the subject matter such that the requester is not impaired in carrying out its watchdog or research functions and there are grounds (eg cost) for not disclosing the balance, it may be that a refusal to provide the balance will not be disproportionate for the purposes of article 10(2).63 did not require the collection of any data by the government, unlike the situation in Guerra. 55

Kenedi v Hungary (31475/05) [2009] ECHR 78, (2009) 27 BHRC 335. See 3– 011 below.

56

Gillberg v Sweden [2012] ECHR 569, 34 BHRC 247 at [86]. This case concerned a professor at the University of Gothenberg, who had headed a large 15-year study into neuropsychiatric disorders in children, who destroyed University documents (research material) in order to prevent the University from complying with rulings by the domestic courts that the research material be provided to two researchers (‘K’ and ‘E’) outside the university. Effectively, Professor Gillberg claimed that the ECHR gave him a personal right to maintain a reverse-FOI position (ie an entitlement to prevent a public authority from complying with a FOI request for information held by it). In rejecting Professor Gillberg’s claim, the Court made the important observation (at [93]) that such a reverse-FOI right in Professor Gillberg ‘would also impinge upon K’s and E’s rights under article 10, as granted by the Administrative Court of Appeal, to receive information in the form of access to the public documents concerned...’ The ‘public documents concerned’ had earlier (at [87]) been identified as the information they had requested and held by the university, ie information that was not personal information relating to the requesters.

57

Shapovalov v Ukraine [2012] ECHR 1665. See 3– 010 below.

58

Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia (App no 48135/06) [2013] ECHR 584. See 3– 010 below.

59

Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung eines wirtschaftlich gesunden land-und forstwirt-schaftlichen Grundbesitzes v Austria (App 39534/07) 28 November 2013 (ie Austrian Association for the preservation, strengthening and creation of an economically sound agricultural and forestry land ownership).

60

For a critique of the piecemeal nature of these developments, see K Steyn and H Slarks ‘Positive Obligations to Provide Access to Information under the European Convention on Human Rights’ [2012] 17 JR 308.

61

Venice Commission Opinion Draft Law about Obtaining Information of the Courts of Azerbaijan (Opinion No 548/2009) at [13]-[21]. The evolution in Strasbourg case law was recognised by Advocate General Kokott in her opinion in Commission of the European Communities v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (C-139/07P) [2011] 1 CMLR 3 at fn18 to [AG47]. But contrast the ECJ’s approach in Case T-590/10 Thesing v European Central Bank [2013] 2 CMLR 8 at [65] to [81], which concerned the ECB’s refusal to grant a journalist access to documents concerning the Greek government’s use of derivative transactions to finance the country’s deficit and manage government debt. For an assessment of the of the evolving Strasbourg case law, as well as its effects on ECJ jurisprudence, see A O’Neill, EU Law for UK Lawyers, (Oxford, Hart, 2011) at ch 16.

62

Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v Hungary (2011) 53 EHRR 3, [2009] ECHR 618 at [36]; Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung v Austria (App 39534/07) 28 November 2013 at [44].

63

Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung v Austria (App 39534/07) 28 November 2013 at [47].

91

CHAPTER 3 — THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC 3– 010 Access to official information by those acting as social watchdogs The right of access to official information by journalists was considered in Shapovalov v Ukraine,64 where the Court held that ‘the gathering of information is an essential preparatory step in journalism and is an inherent, protected part of press freedom.’65 The Court stated that obstacles which hinder access to information of public interest could discourage those working in the media or related fields from pursuing such matters, undermining their ‘vital role as “public watchdogs,” and [adversely affecting] their ability to provide accurate and reliable information.’66 A different type of public watchdog was considered in Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia,67 which concerned an NGO that monitored the implementation of transitional laws in Serbia with a view to ensuring respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The Government argued that the NGO’s application to the European Court was inadmissible on the basis that article 10 did not guarantee a general right to freedom of information.68 The Court rejected that argument, holding that ‘the notion of “freedom to receive information” embraces a right of access to information,’ and that the NGO’s activities as ‘a public watchdog of similar importance to that of the press’ warranted similar Convention protection.69 The Court found that there had been a breach of article 10.70 A concurring opinion went on to point out that any individual seeking information which is not of a personal nature but is in the public interest is acting as a public watchdog.71

64

Shapovalov v Ukraine [2012] ECHR 1665. The applicant had sought access to official information under domestic FOI legislation. The public authority, an electoral commission, refused and the refusal was upheld in the domestic courts (at [28]). Although the ECtHR found no violation of article 10, that was because the public authority had subsequently provided the applicant with the great majority of the information he sought (at [71]-[75]).

65

At [68].

66

At [68], following Dammann v Switzerland (no 77551/01), ECtHR, 25 April 2006 at [52]. Endorsed in Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung v Austria (App 39534/07) 28 November 2013 at [34].

67

Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia (App no 48135/06) [2013] ECHR 584. Using Serbia’s FOI legislation, an NGO requested information from the Intelligence Agency about the number of people it had subjected to electronic surveillance. The Agency relied on an exemption to refuse, but, following a complaint by the NGO, was ordered to make the information available by the Serbian Information Commissioner. The Agency had then denied holding any information.

68

At [17].

69

At [20].

70

At [24]-[26]. The Court examined the facts and found the Intelligence Agency’s denial of holding the information ‘unpersuasive’ and that its actions amounted to arbitrary defiance of domestic law. The decision in Youth Initiative for Human Rights was cited in the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (A/68/362, 4 September 2013) at [38] as support for the Rapporteur’s conclusion that the right to receive information ‘comprises the right of individuals to access general information and, more particularly, information of public interest that can contribute to public debate.’

71

Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Sajó and Vučinić, who added: ‘We are in full agreement with the conclusions and reasoning of this judgment. It is of particular importance for those countries where, even today, long lasting habits make it difficult to have access to data which, in the days of totalitarianism, were used for oppressive purposes by secret services. However, we write this concurring opinion in particular to highlight the general need to interpret Article 10 in conformity with developments in international law regarding freedom of information, which entails access to information held by public bodies. We refer, in particular, to Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 34 (document CCPR/C/GC/34 of 12 September 2011, §18).’

92

STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE: OTHER ARTICLES 3– 011 Access to official information required for research Article 10 of the ECHR has been relied upon in cases relating to the right of access to official information required for research. In Kenedi v Hungary72 the Court held that ‘access to original documentary sources for legitimate historical research was an essential element of the exercise of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.’73 The Grand Chamber in Gillberg v Sweden74 characterised researchers’ rights of access to the results of a research study conducted through a university as ‘rights under Article 10.’75 In the Austrian Agricultural Land Association case,76 where the applicant was an association for agricultural land preservation which was involved in the legitimate gathering of information of public interest and whose aims were to carry out research and submit comments on draft laws, the First Section Court held that it contributed to public debate and enjoyed rights under article 10.77

4.

STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE: OTHER ARTICLES

3– 012 Article 6 In certain circumstances, a request for access to information may engage article 6(1)78 of the ECHR. The concept of a ‘civil right’ has an autonomous meaning under the Convention, such that the classification of the right under domestic law is not decisive.79 Public law matters are not excluded from being ‘civil rights and obligations’ if they are directly decisive of private law

72

Kenedi v Hungary (App no 31475/05) [2009] ECHR 78, (2009) 27 BHRC 335. This case concerned a historian specialising in the functioning of secret services of dictatorships, whose statutory request for access to documents held by the Hungarian State Security Service had been refused, despite court decisions in his favour mandating that access be given.

73

At [43].

74

Gillberg v Sweden [2012] ECHR 569, 34 BHRC 247. See fn 56 above.

75

At [93].

76

Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung v Austria (App 39534/07) 28 November 2013, where the applicant sought information (namely, a request of the Regional Property Transactions Commissions, for all land transactions approvals given by it from 1 January 2000 to mid 2005, anonymised), the applicant sought the information to further its aim of researching and studying past and present transfers of agricultural land. The Commissions refused to disclose any details, arguing that article 10 did not impose any obligation to provide access to information (at [3]). The ECtHR held that the interference was not justified since the Commissions had refused to give the applicant any information, making its task impossible (at [47]).

77

See [36].

78

Article 6(1) of the ECHR provides: In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

79

König v Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 170 at [89].

93

CHAPTER 3 — THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC rights.80 The Court has expressly recognised that the majority of the Convention rights, including those of non-pecuniary nature, are ‘civil rights’ for the purposes of Article 6(1).81 In Kenedi v Hungary,82 the Court ‘recalled’ that the right to freedom of expression constituted a ‘civil right’ and went on to characterise the applicant’s domestic statutory right to access information as a civil right.83 In Shapovalov v Ukraine84 the Court conducted an extensive analysis of the applicability of article 6(1) to proceedings concerning access to information, and concluded that a number of factors are relevant to whether the right will be engaged, including whether a right to obtain information is recognised in domestic law and where the information is required for the applicant to practice a profession.85 Article 6(1) has also successfully been relied upon to require disclosure of documents that may be relevant to litigation.86 3– 013 Other articles of the ECHR Article 5(4) of the ECHR which concerns the right of access to a court to test the lawfulness of detention includes the right to access documents and information.87 Article 2 of the ECHR, which protects the right to life may in certain circumstances require provision of information relating to matters concerning health and safety.88 Article 2 of the ECHR also imposes positive obligations on states to establish effective mechanisms to investigate deaths in certain situations.89 The Tribunal has not been open to arguments in support of access to information based on Article 9 of the ECHR, which protects freedom of thought, or Article 11 of the 80

R Clayton and H Tomlinson, The Law of Human Rights (Oxford, OUP, 2009) at 11.329 and 11.346-350. See also, in the context of access to information, Taskin v Turkey (App no 46117/99) (2006) 42 EHRR 50 at [128]-[138].

81

See the discussion in Shapovalov v Ukraine [2012] ECHR 1665 at [45]. cf §3– 010.

82

Kenedi v Hungary (App no 31475/05) [2009] ECHR 78, (2009) 27 BHRC 335. cf §3– 011.

83

At [33]-[34]. The Court went on at [35]-[39] to find a breach of art 6(1) in circumstances where a period of over 10 years had passed from the applicant making request for information, including a lengthy period in which he has been unable to enforce a court decision in his favour.

84

Shapovalov v Ukraine (App no 45835/05) [2012] ECHR 1665. cf §3– 010.

85

At [42]-[49].

86

See KH v Slovakia (App no 32881/04) (2009) 49 EHRR 34, 27 BHRC 373 at [59]-[69] (disclosure of medical records prior to institution of civil proceedings); McGinley and Egan v United Kingdom (App nos 21825/93 and 23414/94) (1999) 27 EHRR 1, 4 BHRC 421, (1998) 42 BMLR 123 (disclosure of documents relating to nuclear tests for the purposes of litigation before the Pensions Appeals Tribunal). See also Edwards v United Kingdom (App no 13071/87) (1992) 15 EHRR 417 (defendants in criminal cases have the right to disclosure of information relevant to their trial). Cf Case C-450/06 Varec v Belgium [2008] 2 CMLR 24 at [43]-[55] in the context of access to documents under EU law in litigation to review the award of contracts. For consideration by domestic courts see: Re B (Disclosure to other Parties) [2001] 2 FLR 1017, [2002] 2 FCR 32, [2001] Fam Law 798; R (Ann S) v Plymouth City Council and C [2002] EWCA Civ 388, [2002] 1 WLR 2583, [2002] 1 FLR 1177; Roberts v Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust, IT, 1 August 2008 at [19]-[25].

87

See Weeks v United Kingdom (App no 9787/82) (1988) 10 EHRR 293 at [66]-[67]; Roberts v Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust [2008] EWHC 1934 (QB), [2009] FSR 4 at [19].

88

See Osman v United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 245, [1999] 1 FLR 193, (1999) 11 Admin LR 200. See also Oneryildiz v Turkey (App no 48939/99) [2004] 39 EHRR 12 where the Court found that the Government had violated art 2 of the Convention because it did not provide inhabitants living near an unsafe rubbish tip with information ‘enabling them to assess the risks they might run as a result of the choices they had made’. In this context there is likely to be an overlap with art 8 of the ECHR. See, for example, Guerra v Italy (App no 14967/89) (1998) 26 EHRR 357, 4 BHRC 63 at [61]-[62] and Taskin v Turkey (App no 46117/99) (2006) 42 EHRR 50 at [139]-[140].

89

See R v SSHD, ex p Amin [2003] UKHL 5, [2004] 1 AC 653, [2003] 4 All ER 1264, [2004] HRLR 3, [2004] UKHRR 75.

94

STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE: OTHER ARTICLES ECHR, which protects freedom of association.90

5.

INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

3– 014 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights The Human Rights Committee, which interprets and applies the ICCPR, has held in two individual cases that the right to freedom of expression in article 19(2)91 guarantees a right to access to information: Gauthier v Canada,92 a complaint brought by a journalist, and Toktakunov v Kyrgyzstan,93 a complaint brought by an NGO. The Human Rights Committee has since issued General Comment 34,94 in which it declared that article 19(2) ‘embraces a right of access to information held by public bodies.’95 The Human Rights Committee has also observed in General Comment 16,96 that the right to privacy in article 17 of the Covenant97 includes an individual right of access to personal information held by public authorities or private individuals or bodies.98 3– 015 American Convention on Human Rights The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has concluded that article 13 of the Convention99 90

Ritchie v IC, FTT, 26 July 2011 at [60]-[67], which concerned a request for access to an alleged blacklist of workers in the construction industry who engaged in trade union activities.

91

The text of article 19(2) of the ICCPR is set out at fn 2 above.

92

Communication 633/1995, CCPR/C/65/D (5 May 1999) at [13.5]. This case concerned the publisher of a newspaper. He had applied for membership of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery, a private association administering accreditation for access to the precincts of the Parliament. He was provided with a temporary pass but his repeated requests for equal access on the same terms as other reporters and publishers were refused. The temporary pass meant he was denied access to the press facilities of Parliament and so was not allowed to take notes during Parliamentary debates, although he could watch from the public gallery. The Human Rights Committee held that the complainant’s rights under Article 19(2) had been violated, because the restriction on his right of access to information was not proportionate. See [13.6]-[13.7].

93

Communication 1470/2006, CCPR/C/101/D/1470/2006 (21 April 2011). This case concerned a human rights NGO which requested the Kyrgyz Ministry of Justice and Central Department of Corrections to provide it with information on the number of individuals sentenced to death in Kyrgyzstan as of 31 December 2003, as well as on the number of individuals sentenced to death and detained in the penitentiary system. The request was refused on the basis that the information was classified. The Committee held that the State party had an obligation to provide the requested information and that the refusal to do so was not justified, resulting in a breach of article 19. See [7.4]-[7.8].

94

CCPR/C/GC/34 (12 September 2011). General Comments are authoritative interpretative instruments, which give rise to a normative consensus on the meaning and scope of particular human rights: see Conway Blake, ‘Normative Instruments in International Human Rights Law: Locating the General Comment’ (2008) Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper No 17.

95

At [18]. This was cited by the ECtHR in Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia (App no 48135/06) [2013] ECHR 584 at [13].

96

HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (8 April 1988).

97

Article 17(1) provides: ‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.’

98

At [10].

99

The provisions of art 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights are set out at fn 8, 49 above.

95

CHAPTER 3 — THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC includes a right of access to information. The Inter-American Commission in Claude Reyes v Chile100 was of the view that the free expression rights guaranteed by Article 13 includes a general right to access state-held information and a corresponding obligation for states to ensure that the information is available. The information sought in Claude Reyes concerned a major logging project. The Commission’s view was affirmed by the American Court of Human Rights on 11 October 2006. The Court stated: With respect to the facts of the present case, the Court concludes that article 13 of the Convention, which specifically establishes the rights to “seek” and “receive” information protects the right of all persons to request access to information held by the State, with the exceptions permitted by the restrictions regime of the Convention. As a result, this article supports the right of persons to receive such information and the positive obligation on the State to supply it, so that the person may have access to the information or receive a reasoned response when, on grounds permitted by the Convention, the State may limit access to it in the specific case. The said information should be provided without a need to demonstrate a direct interest in obtaining it, or a personal interest, except in cases where a legitimate restriction applies. Disclosure to one person in turn permits it [the information] to circulate in society in such a way that it can be known, obtained and evaluated. In this way, the right to freedom of thought and of expression contemplates protection of the right of access to information under State control.101

The approach in Reyes was followed by the Court in Lund v Brazil,102 in which the failure of the Brazilian state to provide access to information requested by the next of kin of ‘disappeared persons’ was held to breach article 13.103 The Inter-American Commission has also found a number of breaches of article 13 on the basis of failures by states to provide access to information.104 It remains to be seen whether the Claude Reyes v Chile line of cases will have any influence on the European Court of Human Rights’ thinking on the issue.105 It is possible that the Strasbourg Court may seek to distinguish such case law on the basis that article 13 of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, unlike article 10 of the ECHR, includes the right to ‘seek information’ rather than merely receive and impart information. 100

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report 31/05, Case 12.108.

101

At [77]. The Court ordered Chile to provide the information requested about the logging project or adopt a reasoned decision as to why it was not providing it (at [157]-[158]. The Court further required the State to train public officials on the right of access to information at (at [164]).

102

Series C No 219 (24 November 2010).

103

At [197]-[200],

104

See, for example, Kichwa People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, Report 138/09, Case 12.465 (right of access to information concerning exploration and exploitation activities for natural resources in the territory of indigenous communities); José Miguel Gudiel Álvarez (“Diario Militar”) v Guatemala, Report 116/10, Case 12.590 (right of access to information concerning human rights violations; where national security is raised against disclosure, the state is required to demonstrate to an impartial authority that disclosing the information could have a serious, real, objective, and immediate impact on the defence of a democratic state).

105

Reyes has been cited once by the Court, in Stoll v Switzerland (App no 69698/01) ECHR 10 December 2007 (Grand Chamber), but not in the context of the right to receive information. The case concerned the criminal prosecution of a journalist who published a leaked confidential memo sent from the Swiss Ambassador to the US head of a team conducting highly sensitive negotiations about repatriation of unclaimed assets held in Swiss banks by those presumed killed during the Holocaust. The Grand Chamber relied on Reyes in finding that press freedom assumes even greater importance in circumstances in which state activities and decisions escape democratic or judicial scrutiny on account of their confidential or secret nature (at [111]). However, the Court held that the prosecution was justified because the sensationalist and truncated nature of the news report was likely to mislead the public.

96

IMPACT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

6.

IMPACT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

3– 016 Introduction Prior to the coming into force of the Freedom of Information Act on 1 January 2005, attempts were made in various contexts to rely upon the Human Rights Act in order to secure official information. Although the conferral of an entitlement to information under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations has diminished the need to found a right upon the Human Rights Act, the existence of a suite of exemptions and the public interest balancing exercise required for qualified exemptions mean that pre-entitlement authorities retain significance. 3– 017 Article 8: personal information Article 8 of the ECHR has been relied upon in a number of cases relating to personal information although, so far, its impact has been limited. In Linda Gunn-Russo v Nugent Care Society and The Secretary of State for Health106 the claimant sought disclosure of her adoption records held by a voluntary adoption agency. The High Court concluded that in that context article 8 of the ECHR added nothing to the common law. The Court rejected the claimant’s argument, based on Gaskin, that the voluntary adoption agency could not have the last word and there must be some form of appeal to an independent authority: unlike Gaskin107 the information sought included private information relating to others, namely the adoptive family, rather than just the claimant. However, the courts have permitted access to third party information in the context of guardianship proceedings and care proceedings.108 3– 018 Article 8: environmental information Article 8 was deployed to support a right to public information in R (Furness) v Environment Agency,109 where the claimants cited Guerra110 in relation to an alleged failure to protect their right to information affecting their homes. The claimants had been challenging the grant of an authorisation for incineration of municipal waste to take place at an industrial estate near their homes. Although the challenge failed,111 the court appeared to accept that article 8 could 106

[2001] EWHC (Admin) 566, [2002] 1 FLR 1, [2001] UKHRR 1320.

107

Gaskin v United Kingdom (1989) 12 EHRR 36.

108

See R (Ann S) v Plymouth City Council and C [2002] EWCA Civ 388, [2002] 1 WLR 2583, [2002] 1 FLR 1177, which concerned the disclosure to the appellant’s mother and nearest relative of certain information contained in social service files concerning her adult but mentally incapacitated son, C. The Court of Appeal concluded, relying in part on art 8 that disclosure was appropriate. And similarly Re B (Disclosure to other Parties) [2001] 2 FLR 1017, [2002] 2 FCR 32 and Re R (a child) (disclosure) [2004] EWHC 2085 (Fam), which concerned disclosure of documents in care proceedings. But compare FL v Registrar General [2010] EWHC 3520 (Fam), [2011] 2 FLR 630, where the court rejected an application for disclosure of the adoption records of the applicant’s father. Article 8 was relied on, but was dismissed at [49]-[52] without much analysis.

109

R (Furness) v Environment Agency [2001] EWHC (Admin) 1058, [2002] Env LR 26.

110

Guerra v Italy (App no 14967/89) (1998) 26 EHRR 357, 4 BHRC 63.

111

At [25]-[27].

97

CHAPTER 3 — THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC require the provision of information if there were a substantial threat to health or property. Article 8 and the Guerra/Roche line of cases is yet to be properly considered by the Tribunal.112 3– 019 Article 8: police etc information Article 8 has also been relied on in relation to access to information held by the Security Service. In Baker v SSHD,113 the appellant challenged the Security Service’s refusal to confirm or deny (NCND) that it kept records about him, and the SSHD’s certificate purporting to exempt the Security Service from the provisions of the Part II DPA 1998. The Information Tribunal held that article 8 was engaged, as NCND removed one of the preconditions of action by the data subject: knowledge as to whether his data was held.114 However, NCND was justifiable in appropriate cases. The Tribunal went on to quash the certificate as it was found to be wider than necessary to protect national security.115 In MacMahon’s (Aine) Application116 the High Court in Northern Ireland left open the possibility that article 8 may require the police or the prosecution to allow victims of crime (or their families) access to information available to the investigating authorities, although the court recognised that this had to be balanced against the ‘obvious interest in preserving confidentiality.’117 3– 020 Article 10: inquiries There has been little domestic case law successfully relying on article 10 of the ECHR to found an entitlement to information held by a public authority. The early cases considered by the English Courts related to government inquiries. In R (Wagstaff) v Secretary of State for Health118 the claimant successfully relied upon article 10 to require that the inquiry into Dr Shipman’s activities be held in public. The Wagstaff decision was a high watermark, not least because it pre-dated the coming into force of the Human Rights Act. Later cases concerning inquiries have been more reluctant to apply article 10. In Persey v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,119 which concerned the inquiry into the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the High Court held that article 10 was not engaged by a decision to hold a closed public inquiry.120 The Court stated that article 10 does not impose a positive obligation on government to provide, in addition to existing means of communication, ‘an open forum to achieve the yet

112

See Civil Aviation Authority v Information Commissioner and Kirkaldie, IT, 22 January 2010 at [48]. Art 10 was considered in Kennedy v Charity Commission, FTT, 18 November 2011 and the Guerra/Roche line of cases was cited at [25]-[28], but the Tribunal did not engage in any analysis based on art 8.

113

Baker v SSHD [2001] UKHRR 1275.

114

At [67]. See also Gosling v SSHD, Data Protection Tribunal, 1 August 2003 and Hitchens v SSHD, Data Protection Tribunal, 4 August 2003, which challenged the use of NCND permitted by the revised certificate.

115

At [113]-[116].

116

MacMahon’s (Aine) Application [2012] NIQB 60.

117

At [66]-[88] and [110].

118

[2001] 1 WLR 292, [2000] HRLR 646, [2000] UKHRR 875.

119

[2002] EWHC 371 (Admin), [2003] QB 794.

120

See also R (Howard) v Secretary of State for Health [2002] EWHC 396 (Admin), [2003] QB 803, which held that art 10 was not engaged in a decision not to hold a public inquiry into circumstances surrounding the serious misbehaviour of a doctor.

98

IMPACT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 wider dissemination of views.’121 The Court was critical of the analysis of article 10 in Wagstaff, noting that the decision was not supported by the Strasbourg authorities.122 Similar criticism was voiced in R (Howard) v Secretary of State for Health,123 with Scott Baker J noting that article 10 ‘does not confer a right on individuals to receive information that others are not willing to impart.’124 This line of authority may need to be adapted in light of the Társaság125 which found that article 10 does provide a limited right of access to information, provided that its dissemination is required by an established public interest. 3– 021 Article 10: the Press The Court of Appeal has recognised the development in Strasbourg jurisprudence.126 In Independent News and Media Ltd v A,127 the Court examined the case law culminating in Társaság and observed that article 10 was developing a wider scope, concluding that cases where the media is involved and a genuine public interest is raised might in any event be outside the Leander128 approach.129 In R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court,130 the Court surveyed the Strasbourg cases up to Kenedi131 and characterised them as ‘leading in the same direction’ as the common law principle of open justice, which the Court held required that the media be given access to various documents referred to in the course of an extradition hearing.132 However, the Supreme Court in BBC v Sugar (No 2)133 was not prepared to accept that the case law culminating in Kenedi established that an individual’s article 10 freedom to receive information would be interfered with ‘whenever, as in the present case, a public authority, acting consistently with the domestic legislation governing the nature and extent of 121

At [53]. Similarly, in R (Pelling) v Bow County Court (No 2) [2001] UKHRR 165, [2001] ACD 1 (at [36]), the Divisional Court, after quoting from Guerra v Italy (App no 14967/89) (1998) 26 EHRR 357, 4 BHRC 63 said: ‘The point does not arise in this case, but it seems to me very pertinent that the Strasbourg court does not recognise an absolute right to receive information in the absence of willingness on the part of those holding that information to give it to him. …If the state makes arrangements to prevent that information flowing it does not, in my judgment, by that step alone, involve itself in any breach of Article 10.’

122

At [48]-[54].

123

[2002] EWHC 396 (Admin), [2003] QB 803 at [99]-[112].

124

In Higher Education Funding Council for England v Information Commissioner & anor, IT, 13 January 2010 at [28], the Information Tribunal considered itself bound by Howard.

125

See §3– 009 above.

126

See §3– 009 above.

127

Independent News & Media Ltd & ors v A [2010] EWCA Civ 343, [2010] 1 WLR 2262.

128

Leander v Sweden (App no 9248/81) (1987) 9 EHRR 434.

129

At [39] and [41]. See also Sugar v British Broadcasting Commission & anor [2010] EWCA Civ 715, [2010] 1 WLR 2278 at [76], where Moses LJ described Társaság as ‘a landmark decision on freedom of information’. Following Independent News and Media Ltd v A, the First-tier Tribunal held that art 10 was engaged in Cobain v IC and Crown Prosecution Service, FTT, 8 February 2012 at [55]-[58], which concerned a request by a journalist for information held by the CPS.

130

R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618.

131

Kenedi v Hungary (31475/05) [2009] ECHR 78, (2009) 27 BHRC 335.

132

At [89].

133

Sugar v BBC (No 2) [2012] UKSC 4, [2012] 1 WLR 439.

99

CHAPTER 3 — THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC its obligations to disclose information, refuses access to documents.’134 The Court of Appeal in Kennedy v Charity Commission135 felt itself bound by this to hold that the Leander136 line of jurisprudence had not been materially extended by Társaság and Kenedi.137 The point is being considered by the Supreme Court.138 3– 022 The impact upon the Freedom of Information Act: introduction In introducing the second reading of the Freedom of Information Bill in the House of Commons, Jack Straw (the then Home Secretary), acknowledged that the Bill and the Human Rights Act 1998 were interrelated. He stated: The 1998 Act sets out the European Convention’s statement of basic rights. Some of those rights are absolute, such as that provided in Article 3, guaranteeing freedom from torture or degrading treatment. The rights which we have had to wrestle in the Freedom of Information Bill are not absolutes, but have to be balanced one with another. Article 10 gives a right to freedom of expression, but that has to be set against Article 8 on the right to respect for a private life. We have therefore sought in the Bill to secure a balance between the right to information needed for the proper exercise of freedom of expression and the directly conflicting right of individuals to protection of information about themselves; the rights that institutions, including commercial companies should have to proper confidentiality; and the need for any organisation, including the Government, to be able to formulate its collective policies in private.139

All the bodies that are subject to the duties imposed by s 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are likely to be public authorities within the meaning of s 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Equally, the bodies that are responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Information Act 2000, including the Information Commissioner, the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal and the Courts, are also public authorities within the meaning of s 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. All such bodies are required to act compatibly with the provisions of the ECHR. In most cases under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, no issues will arise under the ECHR. However, in certain cases the ECHR may have an impact. Such an impact is likely to occur in two areas: (a) the information sought engages a substantive provision of the Convention; (b) Article 6 of the ECHR may be relevant to the fairness of a hearing before the Information Commissioner, the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal or the Courts. 3– 023 The impact upon the Freedom of Information Act: practical 134

Per Lord Brown at [95]-[98], per Lord Mance at [113] and per Lord Wilson, with some diffidence, at [58]. This pre-dated Gillberg v Sweden [2012] ECHR 569, 34 BHRC 247, Shapovalov v Ukraine [2012] ECHR 1665 and Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia (App no 48135/06) [2013] ECHR 584.

135

Kennedy v Charity Commission [2012] EWCA Civ 317, [2012] 1 WLR 3524.

136

Leander v Sweden (App no 9248/81) (1987) 9 EHRR 434.

137

At [48]-[58]. In All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition v IC and FCO, FTT, 3 May 2012 the FTT followed suit (at [115]-[124]).

138

As at 1 December 2013 an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Kennedy v Charity Commission [2012] EWCA Civ 317, [2012] 1 WLR 3524 had been heard by the Supreme Court, but judgment remained reserved. There is thus, at the moment of writing, no domestic ruling on the implications of the decisions in Gillberg and Youth Initiative for Human Rights, but it is expected that the evolution in Strasbourg jurisprudence will be considered by the Supreme Court in Kennedy v Charity Commission.

139

Hansard HC cols 719–720 (7 December 1999).

100

IMPACT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 Public authorities holding information and equally the Information Commissioner and the Tribunals have a duty, pursuant to section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, to interpret the Freedom of Information Act 2000 so far as possible in a way that is compatible with the provisions of the ECHR incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. In cases concerning personal information, and environmental information that may have an impact on an individual’s private or home life, article 8 of the ECHR may well be of relevance to the interpretation of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Article 2 will be relevant to investigations of deaths in custody. Article 10 is likely to be engaged in cases concerning access to information by a ‘public watchdog’ or access to information necessary for the applicant to practice a profession or to conduct academic research. If a right under the ECHR is engaged this may require the public authority, the Commissioner or tribunals to adopt a restrictive approach to the exemptions permitting the withholding of the information sought and may impinge on the public interest balancing exercise (in relation to qualified exemptions). For example, where the information sought relates to environmental issues that could have an impact on the applicant’s health or well being, the public authority holding the information is likely to be required to consider the impact of article 8 of the ECHR when deciding whether a particular exception applies and, if it is a qualified exemption, whether the public interest favours disclosure. Equally, if the public authority refuses disclosure and the applicant appeals to the Information Commissioner or the tribunals, these bodies will also have to have regard to the rights of the applicant under article 8 and article 10 of the ECHR to such information when interpreting the scope of exceptions and whether the public interest is in favour of disclosure. The ECHR may also be invoked in support of any argument that the public interest favours withholding the information sought. Indeed, it is in this context that the ECHR has been invoked most often before the tribunals. Respondents seeking to resist disclosure of information that is protected by legal professional privilege140 and confidentiality141 have invoked the ECHR in support of their arguments that the material sought should not be disclosed. 3– 024 The Human Rights Act 1998 and procedural fairness before the First-tier Tribunal and other bodies Article 6(1) of the ECHR142 which protects the right to a fair trial applies to the determination of an individual’s civil rights and obligations. The concept of ‘civil rights and obligations’ has been given an autonomous meaning under the Convention. It is not clear whether in the majority of cases, the right to access information will give rise to a ‘civil right or obligation’ so as to engage article 6 of the ECHR. The European Commission of Human Rights in Barry v France143 rejected an argument that article 6 of the ECHR applied to a refusal of an application for access to information relating to steps being taken by the French Foreign Ministry to inquire 140

See, eg Bellamy v Information Commissioner and DTI, IT, 4 April 2006 at [11]; Kitchener v Information Commissioner, IT, 20 December 2006 at [16]–[17].

141

See, eg: Bustin v Information Commissioner, IT, 16 December 2005 at [35]; Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council & ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1214, [2012] PTSR 185 at [141].

142

Article 6(1) of the ECHR.

143

Barry v France (App no 14497/89) 14 October 1991. But see now: Syndicat CFDT des Etablissements et Arsenaux du Valde-Marne and Vesque v France (App no 11678/85) 7 December 1987; Loiseau v France (App No 46809/99) ECHR 18 November 2003; Micallef v Malta (App no 17056/06) ECHR 15 January 2008 at [39].

101

about and support political prisoners. Equally, the Commission dismissed a similar application in relation to a rejection of a request by an individual who was seeking access to redacted parts of his police file which disclosed the identity of members of the security services.144 In both cases, the Commission dismissed the applications because the information sought could not be considered personal to the applicant. Clearly applications under the Data Protection Act 1998 are likely to engage article 6 of the ECHR because the information sought is, by definition, of a personal nature.145 Later authorities from the European Court have been more receptive to the engagement of article 6. Although the bounds have not been set, the Court has has held that where domestic law recognises a right of access to official information and that right is important for the applicant’s personal or professional interests – such as a journalist making a request for information in order to practise his profession – then that request will fall within the applicant’s freedom of expression and constitute a ‘civil right’ for the purposes of article 6.1 of the ECHR.146 Of course, hearings before the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal will be subject to the domestic law requirements of natural justice which is concerned with similar issues to article 6 of the ECHR.147

144

See Schaller Volpi v Switzerland (App no 25147/94) 84 DR 106.

145

See ch 5 on access to personal information.

146

Kenedi v Hungary (31475/05) [2009] ECHR 78, 27 BHRC 335 at [33]-[34]; Shapovalov v Ukraine [2012] ECHR 1665 at [42]-[49]. Lord Brown in Sugar v BBC (No 2) [2012] UKSC 4, [2012] 1 WLR 439, [2012] EMLR 17, [2012] 2 All ER 509 at [94], dealing with the disapplication of the Act to information held by the BBC for journalistic purposes, considered that art 10 does not create a ‘general right to freedom of information,’ noting that the applicant’s position would not have been any better had he been a journalist. The Upper Tribunal in Browning v Information Commissioner and DBIS [2013] UKUT 236 (AAC) (20 May 2013) at [82] (a case involving a journalist) doubted that it the entitlement conferred by FOIA constituted a ‘civil right’, but did so without considering the decision in Shapovalov v Ukraine [2012] ECHR 1665. See further Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v Hungary (2011) 53 EHRR 3. The European Court of Justice, when considering the right of access to Community institution information (see Chapter 4), has acknowledged the development in ECHR jurisprudence: Commission of the European Communities v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (C-139/07P) [2011] 1 CMLR 3, [2010] EUECJ C-139/07, [2011] Bus LR D81 at fn 18.

147

In BBC v Sugar [2007] EWHC 905 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 2583 at [45] the Court rejected an argument that art 6 was offended by the appeal system under the FOIA. This was upheld by the Court of Appeal ([2008] EWCA Civ 191, [2008] 1 WLR 2289 at [38]-[47]. The point was not appealed to the House of Lords: [2009] UKHL 9. [2009] 1 WLR 430.

102

CHAPTER 4

Rights of Access under European Union Law Chapter 4 – Rights of Access under European Union Law Nicholas Saunders 1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 001 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 002 The Maastricht Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 003 Article 255 of the Treaty of Amsterdam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 004 The European Charter of Fundamental Rights of The European Union . . . 4– 005 Environmental Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. THE CODE OF PRACTICE AND DECISIONS 93/731 AND 94/90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 006 General principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 007 Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 008 Legal basis, ambit and extension of the right to access to other European bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 009 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. REGULATION 1049/2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 010 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 011 Further changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 012 Object of Regulation 1049/2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 013 The register and publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 014 Information, administrative practice, copyright and reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 015 Persons entitled to exercise the right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 016 Bodies against which the right may be exercised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 017 The information to which the Regulation applies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 018 The request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 019 The response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 020 Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 021 Exceptions – general principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 022 Prejudice and the public interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 023 Absolute exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 024 Qualified exceptions: article 4(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 025 Qualified exceptions: article 4(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 026 Sensitive documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 027 Third parties and Member State veto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– 028 Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.

Page 103 104 104 104 105 105 106 106 107 107 108 109 109 110 110 111 112 112 113 113 114 114 115 116 116 117 118 118 119 120 120

BACKGROUND 103

CHAPTER 4 — RIGHTS OF ACCESS UNDER EUROPEAN UNION LAW 4– 001 Introduction The institutions of the European Union have neither a strong nor a lengthy tradition of providing access to documents or information held by them. They are thus closer to the British model of government, with a predisposition towards secrecy and non-disclosure,1 than to the openness long practised by the Scandinavian members of the EU. In the last 10 years, however, there has been a considerable opening up by the EU institutions. This chapter focuses on the measures concerning access to documents held by and relating to the operation of EU institutions. This will include a discussion of the Code of Practice, Decisions 93/731 and 94/90 and the case law interpreting these decisions. Whilst the Code of Practice and decisions have now been repealed and replaced by Regulation 1049/2001, the case law under the earlier regime gives some indication as to how the European Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice will interpret Regulation 1049/2001. 4– 002 The Maastricht Treaty The first express recognition of the importance of transparency and openness appeared in Declaration No 17 annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of the European Union (the Maastricht Treaty), which stated: The Conference considers that transparency of the decision-making process strengthens the democratic nature of the institutions and the public’s confidence in the administration. The Conference accordingly recommends that the Commission submit to the Council no later than 1993 a report on measures to improve the public access to the information available to the institutions.2

This stated commitment to openness was reiterated by the European Council in their declaration issued at the conclusion of the Birmingham meeting on 16 October 19923 and reaffirmed by the European Council at Edinburgh in December 1992.4 4– 003 Article 255 of the Treaty of Amsterdam The right of access to documents has now been recognised in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Article 255 (formerly article 191a) provides:5 1.

2.

Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents subject to the principles and conditions to be defined in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3. General principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents shall be determined by the Council, acting in accordance

1

See generally: V Deckmyn and I Thompson (eds), Openness and Transparency in the European Union (Maastricht, European Institute of Public Administration, 1998); V Deckmyn, Increasing Transparency in the European Union? (Maastricht, European Institute of Public Administration, 2002).

2

Declaration No 17 annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of the European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992.

3

Birmingham declaration, 16 October 1992, para 3: ‘...We ask the Commission to complete by early next year its work on improving public access to the information available to it and to other community institutions.’

4

Conclusions of the Presidency, para 7.

104

BACKGROUND 3.

with the procedure referred to in Article 251 within two years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Each institution referred to above shall elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents.6

4– 004 The European Charter of Fundamental Rights of The European Union Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights replicates the first sentence of article 255 of the Treaty of Amsterdam and provides: Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

The Lisbon Treaty, which came into effect on 1 December 2009, gives legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights,7 but Article 42 merely rehearses rights already in existence. 4– 005 Environmental Information On 25 June 1998, the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), at its Fourth Ministerial Conference in the ‘Environment for Europe’ process, adopted a Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice on Environmental Matters. This has become known as the ‘Aarhus Convention’. The Convention entered into force on 30 October 2001. The European Community (as well as the UK) is a signatory to the Aarhus Convention. The Aarhus Convention established a number of rights of the public (citizens and their associations) with respect to the environment. It contains three broad themes or ‘pillars’: access to information, public participation, and access to justice.8 On 28 January 2003 the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted Directive 2003/4/EC ‘on public access to environmental information’.9 This required Member States to enact national legislation giving effect to the Directive, and thereby implement the first pillar of the Aarhus Convention. In the United Kingdom, this was done through the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004. These regulations are considered in detail in Chapter 6. The European Community itself ratified the Aarhus Convention on 17 February 2005. On 26 September 2006 the European Parliament and Council adopted Regulation 1367/2006: this is known as the ‘Aarhus Regulation’. The regulation came into force on 28 September 2006 6

The Treaty of Amsterdam came into force on 21 May 1999, so that the regulation had to be adopted by 1 May 2001.

7

Note the Protocol to the Lisbon Treaty on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and to the United Kingdom, which states that the Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the EU, or any court or tribunal of Poland or the United Kingdom, to find that laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or actions of Poland or the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms. See further Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department, unreported, at [120] in which the Court nevertheless held that the protocol does not ‘intend to exempt’ those states from ensuring compliance with the rights.

8

Thus art 1 of the Aarhus Convention provides ‘In order to contribute to the protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being, each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.’

9

The Directive entered into force on 14 February 2003. Article 10 of the Directive obliges the Member States of the European Union to have their legislation in place at the latest by 14 February 2004.

105

CHAPTER 4 — RIGHTS OF ACCESS UNDER EUROPEAN UNION LAW and applied from 17 July 2007. In effect, the Aarhus Regulation applies Directive 2003/4/EC to all institutions, bodies, offices and agencies established by, or on the basis of, the EC Treaty.10 Thus, in relation to ‘environmental information’ held by institutions, bodies, offices and agencies established by, or on the basis of, the EC Treaty, a person has a free-standing right of access to this information under the Aarhus Regulation. The discussion in Chapter 6, although directed to public authorities in the United Kingdom, can accordingly be applied to environmental information held by such institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.

2.

THE CODE OF PRACTICE AND DECISIONS 93/731 AND 94/90

4– 006 General principles The commitment to openness and transparency expressed in Declaration No 17 annexed to the Maastricht Treaty was realised on 6 December 1993 when, with the approval of both the Commission and the Council, a Code of Conduct concerning public access to Council and Commission documents was published.11 The Council and Commission subsequently adopted this Code of Conduct by decision.12 The Code of Conduct followed the conventional template for access legislation: a universal right of access, immediately qualified by exceptions, enforceable with a right of review. ‘Document’ was defined widely as including ‘any written text, whatever its medium, which contains existing data and is held by the Council or the Commission.’13 However: [w]here the requested document was written by a natural or legal person, a Member State, another Community institution or body, or any other national or international body, the application must not be sent to the Council [or Commission]14 but direct to the author.15

Thus, the right of access to documents was limited to documents produced by the Council or Commission. The Commission and Council were obliged to inform applicants within one month whether the application was approved or rejected. The Code of Practice provided that a failure to reply within the period amounted to a refusal.16 There was an obligation, if the request was refused, to give reasons for the refusal and set out further avenues of redress available, namely a complaint to the ombudsman under article 195 and judicial proceedings under article 230.17 10

The coverage of the Aarhus Regulation is thus broader than Regulation 1049/2001. That regulation applies only to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and, by extension, to the Community Agencies.

11

93/730/EC [1993] OJ L340/41.

12

The Council adopted the Code of Conduct by Decision 93/731 on 20 December 1993 (93/731/EC, [1993] OJ L340/43). The Decision came into force on 1 January 1994. The Commission, on 8 February 1994, adopted Decision 94/90 which under art 1 formally adopted the Code of Conduct. Decisions 93/731 and 94/90 have now been repealed and replaced by Regulation No 1049/2001 discussed at §§4– 010 to 4– 028.

13

See Code of Conduct, General Principles 93/730 Council Decision 93/731/EC art 1(2).

14

See Code of Conduct.

15

Decision 93/731/EC art 2(2).

16

Decision 93/731/EC art 7(1).

17

Decision 93/731/EC art 7(3).

106

THE CODE OF PRACTICE AND DECISIONS 93/731 AND 94/90 4– 007 Exceptions There were two types of exception to the general right of access. First, mandatory exceptions which provided that access to the document should not be granted where its disclosure could undermine: (1) the protection of the public interest (public security, international relations, monetary stability, court proceedings, inspections and investigations); (2) the protection of the individual and privacy; (3) the protection of commercial and industrial secrecy; (4) the protection of the Community’s financial interests; (5) the protection of confidentiality as requested by the natural or legal person who supplied any of the information contained in the document or as required by the legislation of the Member State which supplied any of that information.18 Secondly, a discretionary exception that provided that access to a Council or Commission document might be refused ‘in order to protect the confidentiality of the Council’s proceedings.’19 4– 008 Legal basis, ambit and extension of the right to access to other European bodies The Netherlands challenged the legal basis of the Decision permitting access to documents held by the Council.20 The legal bases for the decision were founded in the rule of procedure and in article 207(3) of the Treaty (vesting in the Council the power to adopt its own rules of procedure). The Netherlands Government argued that access to documents was a citizen’s fundamental right and should therefore have a different legal basis. The European Parliament intervened in support of the Netherlands and argued that the Council had exceeded the powers conferred on it by Article 207. Advocate General Tesauro had some sympathy with the Dutch Government’s arguments. The European Court of Justice was less convinced. The court appeared to refuse to hold that access to information was a general principle of Community law, although it did indicate that the public’s right of access to documents could not be deduced from the Council’s rules of procedure. But the court did not indicate what the legal basis was.21 Whilst the Netherlands Government’s arguments were rejected, the Court has since consistently emphasised the importance of openness on the basis that it strengthens the public’s confidence in the administration as well as enabling citizens to carry out genuine and efficient monitoring of the exercise of the powers.22 The European Court of Justice subsequently held that the right of access extended to documents in the possession of the Council or Commission that related 18

Decision 93/731 art 4(1) and Code of Conduct exceptions (Commission).

19

Decision 93/731 art 4(2) and Code of Conduct exceptions (Commission).

20

Netherlands v Council of the European Union [1996] ECR I–2169, [1996] 2 CMLR 996.

21

Numerous commentators have expressed the view that the only other legal basis for the decision is in a general principle of law, see: M Broberg, ‘Access to documents: a general principle of Community law?’ (2002) 27 European Law Review 194; U Öberg, ‘EU Citizen’s Right to Know: The Improbable Adoption of a European Freedom of Information Act’ in A Dashwood and A Ward (eds), Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, vol 2 (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2000) at p 315.

22

See, eg, Interporc Im und Export GmbH v Commission of the European Communities [1998] ECR II–231, [1998] 2 CMLR 82.

107

CHAPTER 4 — RIGHTS OF ACCESS UNDER EUROPEAN UNION LAW to both second pillar23 (common foreign and security policy) and third pillar24 documents (justice and home affairs). The Court of First Instance25 also concluded that the right of access extended to confidential documents.26 As a result of an inquiry by the European Ombudsman into access of documents held by institutions and bodies other than the Council and the Commission, the Ombudsman concluded that: failure to adopt and make easily available to the public rules governing public access to documents constitutes an issue of maladministration.27

As a result of this ruling all of the bodies to which it was addressed, with the exception of the European Court of Justice, adopted rules governing public access to documents.28 4– 009 Interpretation Both the Commission and Council initially adopted a narrow approach to disclosing documents under Decisions 93/731 and 94/90. In Carvel and Guardian Newspapers Ltd v Council of the European Union29 a newspaper sought access to preparatory reports, minutes and attendance and voting records of the Council of Ministers’ meetings relating to social affairs, justice and agriculture. The Council refused disclosure of the documents relating to justice and agriculture on the grounds of confidentiality. This refusal was challenged by the newspaper with the support of the Danish and Dutch Governments and the European Parliament on the grounds that the decision amounted to a blanket refusal to release information. The newspaper contended that the Council had failed to exercise its discretion and balance the interests of the citizen in gaining 23

Heidi Hautala v Council of the European Union [2002] 1 WLR 1930, [2002] 1 CMLR 15, [2002] CEC 127, on appeal from [2001] ECR I–9565, [1999] 3 CMLR 528.

24

Svenska Journalistforbundet v Council of the European Union [1998] All ER (EC) 545, [1998] ECR II–2289, [1998] 3 CMLR 645 (refusal of various documents relating to the setting up of Europol). An application was made by Svenska to various Swedish bodies under Swedish legislation for twenty documents. The newspaper received 18 of the 20 documents. An identical application was made to the Council but only 4 out of the 20 were disclosed. The remaining 16 documents were refused on grounds of public interest (public security) and confidentiality because they disclosed positions taken by various member states. The Court of First Instance annulled the decision because the Council had failed to give adequate reasons. It was unclear which exception applied to which document. The Court further doubted that the disclosure would prejudice public security as the documents concerned negotiations on the adoption of the Europol Convention. In relation to the confidentiality exception there was no evidence that the Council had engaged in a balancing exercise).

25

The differing roles of the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice are considered in §4– 028.

26

Rothmans International BV v Commissioner of the European Communities [1998] ECR II–2463, [1999] 3 CMLR 66, where the Court of First Instance rejected an argument that a ‘comitology committee’, composed of Member State representatives and chaired by a Commission representative, was not distinct from and independent of the Commission. The Court held that the comitology committee, and others like it, were established to assist the Commission perform its functions and that since they had no individual resources they could not be viewed as ‘another Community institution’ nor as any other third party. The Court held that exceptions to the right of access were to be narrowly construed so as to not to frustrate the proper operation of the right.

27

Decision of the European Ombudsman in his own initiative inquiry into public access to documents (616/PUBAC/F/IJH), p 7.

28

Namely, the European Parliament, the Court of Auditors, The European Investment Bank, The Economic and Social Committee, The Committee of the Regions, The European Monetary Institute, The Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market, The European Training Foundation, The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, The European Environment Agency, The Translation Centre for Bodies of the European Union, The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.

29

[1996] All ER (EC) 53, [1995] ECR II–2765, [1995] 3 CMLR 359, [1996] CEC 282.

108

REGULATION 1049/2001 access to its documents against any interests of its own in maintaining the confidentiality of its deliberations when making its judgment. The Court of First Instance annulled the decision on the grounds that the Council was obliged to balance relevant considerations and had failed to do so. The Guardian obtained the documents. The Court of First Instance indicated that the Commission was obliged to give reasons why it considered that the documents detailed in the request were within one of the exceptions.30 The Court indicated that Decision 94/90 was designed to provide ‘for the widest public access possible’ and as such any exception was to be interpreted strictly.31 In Hautala v European Union Council32 the appellant, a Finnish Member of the European Parliament, sought disclosure of a report on criteria for conventional arms exports. Disclosure was refused on the grounds that it was necessary for the protection of the public interest (international relations) as disclosure would harm EU relations with third countries. The decision was annulled because the Court of First Instance concluded that the Council was under a duty to consider partial access to the document excluding the parts of the report that risked damaging the EU’s relations with third countries. The Council appealed unsuccessfully to the European Court of Justice which reiterated its view that the exceptions were to be interpreted narrowly and laid down the following general principles: (1) the Code of Practice related not only to access to documents but also to information contained in such documents; (2) natural and legal persons had a right of access to information contained in a document not covered by one of the exceptions; and (3) the general principle of proportionality required the Council to consider partial disclosure of a document when disclosure of the whole document would fall within one of the exceptions.33

3.

REGULATION 1049/2001

4– 010 Introduction Regulation 1049/2001 marked a substantial enhancement of the right of access to documents held by the EU Institutions. The Regulation was adopted under the co-decision procedure and approved by the European Parliament on 3 May 2001 pursuant to article 255 EC. It came into force on 3 June 2001 and was applicable from 3 December 2001.34 Its ambit is considerably wider than that of earlier EU schemes. On 5 December 2001 the Commission of the European 30

See also World Wildlife Fund UK v Commission of the European Union [1997] ECR II–313, CFI (refusal to disclose documents relating to EU funded visitors’ centre to be located in Ireland on grounds of the protection of the public interest as the documents related to possible infringement proceedings and as such were related to inspections and investigations). The Commission’s decision was annulled on procedural grounds but the Court of First Instance also found that the Commission had failed to properly balance competing interests in respect of the confidentiality exemption.

31

See also: Van Der Wal v Commission of the European Communities [2000] ECR I–1, [2002] 1 CMLR 16; Bavarian Lager Company Ltd [1999] ECR II–3217, [1999] 3 CMLR 544, [1999] CEC 543.

32

[2002] 1 WLR 1930, [2001] ECR I–9565, [2002] 1 CMLR 15, [2002] CEC 127.

33

[2002] 1 WLR 1930, [2002] 1 CMLR 15, [2002] CEC 127 at [23]–[27] and [31]–[32]. See also Kuijer v Council of the European Union [2002] 1 WLR 1941, [2003] All ER (EC) 276, [2002] 1 CMLR 42, [2002] CEC 238.

34

See art 19 of the Regulation 1049/2001.

109

CHAPTER 4 — RIGHTS OF ACCESS UNDER EUROPEAN UNION LAW Communities amended its rules of procedure for the application of Regulation 1049/2001 to the European Commission.35 As noted above,36 there is a free-standing right of access to ‘environmental information’ held by EU institutions, conferred by the separate and more liberal regime implemented by Regulation 1367/2006.37 4– 011 Further changes On 9 November 2005 the Commission launched a ‘European Transparency Initiative’. This included a proposal that there be a review of Regulation 1049/2001. On 4 April 2006 the European Parliament called on the Commission to come forward with proposals for amending the Regulation. On 18 April 2007 the Commission of the European Commission issued a green paper reviewing the Regulation.38 The outcome of consultations on the green paper was summarised in a report published in January 2008. On 30 April 2008 the Commissioner proposed an updated regulation regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.39 The Commission’s proposed regulation has received a mixed response.40 The regulation is to be adopted under the ‘co-decision’ mechanism whereby the Council of the European Union (the 27 governments) and the European Parliament have to agree on any changes. There has been some controversy over the proposed regulation with the Council and the Parliament disagreeing on the Parliament’s authority to make amendments to the proposed regulation. The Parliament has sought to make changes increasing rights of access and the Council blocked the changes. Subsequent progress has been very slow. An amended proposal issued by the Commission on 21 March 2011 focusses on extending the institutional scope of Regulation 1049/2001 in the light of Article 15(3) TFEU. This proposal was approved with amendments by the Parliament on 15 December 2011 but no further actions have occurred since then. 4– 012 Object of Regulation 1049/2001 Article 1 states that the purpose of the Regulation is: (1) to define the principles, conditions and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing the right of access to institution documents provided for in artcile 255 of the EC Treaty in such a way as to ensure the widest possible access to 35

The rules of procedure spell out the manner in which a request must be made, the manner in which the request is to be handled and the persons to be consulted before responding to the request.

36

§4– 005.

37

Unlike the environmental information regime in its application to public authorities in the United Kingdom, the right conferred by Regulation 1049/2001 applies equally in relation to environmental information held by EU bodies: Regulation 1049/2001 art 2(6). Thus, a person seeking access to environmental information held by a EU body has rights under both Regulation 1049/2001 and under Regulation 1367/2006. In practice, because the latter is more liberal than the former, where there is no right to information falling within the terms of a request (or some of the information falling within the terms of a request) because of the applicability of an exception under Regulation 1367/2006 and/or upon an application of the public interest test in that regulation, it is unlikely that the applicant will have a right to have that information disclosed under Regulation 1049/2001.

38

At: www.ec.europa.eu/transparency/revision/docs/gp_en.pdf

39

www.ec.europa.eu/transparency/access_documents/docs/229_en.pdf

40

See, eg, the comments of Miamh Grogan and Gordon Christian in their article ‘United Kingdom: Proposed Revisions of Regulation — A Step too Far’ Freedom of Information Journal, July 2008 at: www.sjberwin.com/publicationdetails.aspx?mid=14&rid=14&lid=3&cid=1960

110

REGULATION 1049/2001 documents; (2) to establish rules ensuring the easiest possible exercise of this right; and (3) to promote good administrative practice on access to documents.41 The introduction of the regulation was greeted with considerable optimism, with the Commission suggesting that the new rules represented ‘major progress’.42 The Council stated that the new regulation was ‘an important step towards more openness of the institutions and better accessibility of their documents’.43 This change of approach has been recognised by the Court of Justice which commented that: [the] regulation reflects the intention expressed in the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU of marking a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. As is stated in recital 2 to [the] regulation, the public right of access to documents of the institutions is related to the democratic nature of those institutions...44

Regulation 1049/2001 has had a considerable impact on institutional practice encouraging greater openness. Just under 80 per cent of requests for Council documents in 2012 were successful.45 The figure for the Commission is slightly higher – in 2012 some 83% of documents were provided on initial request and 43% at confirmatory stage.46 4– 013 The register and publication To make the citizen’s right of access to documents as effective as possible, the institutions are obliged to provide public access in electronic form to a register of documents.47 The institutions were obliged to have this register operational from 3 June 2002.48 Each document must have a reference number, details of the subject matter and/or a short description of the content together with the date on which it was received or drawn up and recorded.49 The institutions are under an obligation to make, as far as possible, documents publicly accessible in electronic form or through the register.50 There is an obligation to make all legislative documents51 directly accessible subject to arts 4 (exemptions) and 9 (sensitive information).52 In addition to the Register, a number of documents must, subject to arts 4 and 9, be published in the official journal. Documents that must be so published include: 41

Regulation 1049/2001 art 1.

42

European Commission, European Governance. A White Paper, Brussels, 25 July 2001 COM (2001) 428 at 11.

43

See 2346th Council meeting General Affairs, Brussels, 14–15 May, 2001, 8441/01 (presse 169).

44

Case C-280/11P, Council v Access Info Europe (ECJ 17 October 2013), unreported at [27].

45

See Council Annual Report on Access to Documents 2012.

46

See Report from the Commission on the application in 2012 of the Regulation COM/2013/0515.

47

Regulation 1049/2001 art 10(2). The register is similar to publication schemes required of public authorities under the FIOA and FOI(S)A: see §§10– 013 to 10– 018.

48

Regulation 1049/2001 art 11(3).

49

Regulation 1049/2001 art 10(2).

50

Regulation 1049/2001 art 12(2).

51

‘Legislative documents’ are defined in art 12(2) as documents drawn up or received in the course of procedures for the adoption of acts which are legally binding in or for the Member States.

52

Regulation 1049/2001 art 12(2).

111

CHAPTER 4 — RIGHTS OF ACCESS UNDER EUROPEAN UNION LAW (1) Commission proposals; (2) common positions adopted by the Council in accordance with the procedures referred to in arts 251 and 252 of the EC Treaty and the reasons underlying those common positions, as well as the European Parliament’s positions in these procedures; (3) framework decisions and decisions referred to in article 34(2) of the EU Treaty; (4) conventions established by the Council in accordance with article 34(2) of the EU Treaty; (5) conventions signed between Member States on the basis of article 293 of the EC Treaty; (6) international agreements concluded by the Community or in accordance with article 24 of the EU Treaty.53 In addition, the following documents must be published so far as possible: (7) initiatives presented to the Council by a Member State pursuant to article 67(1) of the EC Treaty or pursuant to article 34(2) of the EU Treaty; (8) common positions referred to in article 34(2) of the EU Treaty; (9) directives other than those referred to in article 254(1) and (2) of the EC Treaty, decisions other than those referred to in article 254(1) of the EC Treaty, recommendations and opinions.54 4– 014 Information, administrative practice, copyright and reports Although Regulation 1049/2001 does not expressly impose a duty on the institutions to advise and assist a person making a request for information,55 a similar result is achieved through various provisions in the regulation. Article 14 places a duty on each of the institutions to take measures to inform the public of rights under the Regulation. Member States are obliged to co-operate with the institutions in providing this information. Article 15 provides that the institutions must develop good administrative practices. Article 16 provides that the Regulation is without prejudice to any existing rules on copyright which may limit a third party’s right to reproduce or exploit released documents. Each institution is obliged to publish an annual report which must include the number of cases in which the institution refused to grant access to documents, the reasons for such refusals and the number of sensitive documents not recorded in the register.56 4– 015 Persons entitled to exercise the right By article 2(1) every citizen of the European Union and every natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State is given ‘a right of access to documents of the institutions, subject to the principles, conditions and limits set out elsewhere in [the] Regulation’. There is no need to justify the request or explain why the request has been

53

Regulation 1049/2001 art 13(1).

54

Regulation 1049/2001 art 13(2).

55

Compare the obligations imposed on public authorities in the United Kingdom: see §§10– 001 to 10– 006.

56

Regulation 1049/2001 art 17(1).

112

REGULATION 1049/2001 made.57 As with all comparative freedom of information regimes, the motive of an applicant in seeking a document is largely irrelevant to the efficacy of the request.58 The institutions have a discretion to grant access to documents, subject to the same principles, conditions and limits, to any natural or legal person not residing in or not having a registered office in a Member State.59 4– 016 Bodies against which the right may be exercised The Regulation applies to ‘documents of the institutions’.60 This is defined to mean the European Parliament, Council and Commission.61 Unlike the earlier Code of Practice and Decisions 93/731 and 94/90, Regulation 1049/2001 applies not only to documents created by EU institutions but also to other documents held by the institutions, including documents drawn up or received by it and in its possession, in all areas of activity of the European Union.62 4– 017 The information to which the Regulation applies The unit of disclosure in the regulation is a ‘document’ rather than ‘information’. However, the Court of First Instance has held that the Regulation ‘applies to information generally and not simply to documents.’63 A part disclosure provision renders the difference largely insignificant.64 ‘Document’ is defined widely to mean ‘any content whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording) concerning a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions falling within the institution’s sphere of responsibility’.65 The regime is not limited to documents created by the institutions, but includes all documents held by the institutions whether drawn up by one of the institutions or received by and in the possession of one of the institutions.66 The Regulation would appear to be fully retrospective: that is to say, it covers documents created before its coming into force.67 As with all comparative access regimes, the right is a right to information 57

Regulation 1049/2001 art 6(1). Petrie v Commission of the European Communities [2002] 1 CMLR 18, [2002] CEC 57 at [26], a decision under Decisions 93/731 and 94/90; Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Commission of the European Communities [2005] 1 WLR 3302, [2005] All ER (EC) 813, [2005] ECR II–1121, [2006] 2 CMLR 60, [2005] 4 CMLR 21 at [109]; Sison v Council of European Union [2005] ECR II–1429, [2005] 2 CMLR 29 at [50], [52]; Franchet v Commission of the European Communities [2006] 3 CMLR 37 at [81]–[82].

58

See §§9– 017 and 15– 015.

59

Regulation 1049/2001 art 2(2).

60

Regulation 1049/2001 art 2(1).

61

Regulation 1049/2001 art 1(a).

62

Regulation 1049/2001 art 2(3). And see Case T-380/04 Terezakis v European Commission (CFI 30 January 2008) at [38].

63

Case T-264/04 World Wildlife Fund EPP v EU Council [2007] ECR II-911 at [67]. It is unclear what the Court meant by this statement, as it made clear that the duty on the institution was not to provide information contained in documents in its possession.

64

Regulation 1049/2001 art 4(6). See further Case T-529/09 Sophie in 't Veld v Council of the European Union at [104][106].

65

Regulation 1049/2001 art 3(a). The provision does not confer a right to interrogate the institution: Case T–264/04 WWF European Policy Programme v European Union Council (ECJ 25 April 2007) at [75]–[76].

66

Regulation 1049/2001 art 2(3). As to the meaning of the term ‘held’ see §9– 009.

67

See further §9– 011.

113

CHAPTER 4 — RIGHTS OF ACCESS UNDER EUROPEAN UNION LAW that is recorded in some form: it does not impose upon an institution an obligation to record information.68 4– 018 The request Applications for access to a document must be made in written form, including electronic form, in one of the languages referred to in article 314 of the EC Treaty and in a sufficiently precise manner to enable the institution to identify the document.69 Article 6(2) of the Regulation provides that ‘[if] an application is not sufficiently precise, the institution shall ask the applicant to clarify the application and shall assist the applicant in do so, for example, by providing information on the use of the public registers of documents.’70 If a Member State receives a request for a document in its possession that originates from an institution, the Member State must consult with the institution concerned prior to disclosure unless it is clear to the Member State whether or not the document should be disclosed.71 Alternatively, the Member State may refer the request to the institution concerned.72 An institution has 15 working days after registration of the application to either grant access to a document or provide reasons why access has been refused.73 This period can be extended by another 15 working days if the request is for a very long document or a large number of documents, although the institution must give reasons in advance for this delay. 4– 019 The response There has been considerable discussion in the case law as to the extent to which the institution has to undertake a concrete, individual examination of the documents before responding to a request. The Court of First Instance has concluded that there is, as a general rule, an obligation to examine each document referred to in the request to ascertain whether it should be disclosed or withheld.74 Examination is, however, subject to the principle of proportionality.75 However, the Court has found this obligation discharged on the basis of very limited evidence.76 Further, it may, in exceptional circumstances, be possible to give a total refusal without individual examination of the documents if the administrative burden entailed by a concrete, individual 68

Case T–264/04 World Wildlife Foundation v Council of the European Union, (ECJ 25 April 2007) at [76].

69

Regulation 1049/2001 art 6.

70

See further Case T-42/05 Williams v EC Commission (CFI 10 September 2008) at [74] in which the CFI noted that ‘The duty to provide assistance is therefore essential in order to ensure the effectiveness of the right of access established by Regulation No 1049/2001.’

71

Regulation 1049/2001 art 5; see also Recital 15.

72

Regulation 1049/2001 art 5.

73

Regulation 1049/2001 art 7(1). From the reasons it must be possible to understand and ascertain, first, whether the document requested did in fact fall within the sphere of the exception relied on by the institution and, secondly, whether the need for protection relating to that exception was genuine, see Sison v Council of European Union [2005] ECR II–1429, [2005] 2 CMLR 29 at [61].

74

Franchet v Commission of the European Communities [2006] 3 CMLR 37 at [115]–[118].

75

See Case T-529/09 Sophie in 't Veld v Council of the European Union at [105] in the context of partial access.

76

Sison v Council of European Union [2005] ECR II–1429, [2005] 2 CMLR 29 where the Court of First Instance concluded that a concrete assessment was demonstrated by the existence of a specific procedure for considering requests for sensitive documents together with the Council unanimously approving the refusal of access to such documents.

114

REGULATION 1049/2001 examination is too heavy.77 The reasons for refusal can be brief.78 The institution must also consider whether a document caught by a request can be disclosed without harm to protected interests by redacting parts of the document.79 If the institution makes a partial or total refusal of disclosure the applicant may, within 15 working days of receiving the institution’s reply, make a confirmatory application asking the institution to reconsider its position.80 If for whatever reason the institution fails to reply within the prescribed time limit an applicant is also entitled to make a confirmatory application.81 The confirmatory application must also be decided within 15 working days from registration of the application, subject to the possibility of an extension of 15 working days if the request relates to a very long document or a large number of documents, although the institution must give reasons in advance for this delay.82 In the event of a partial or total refusal, the institution must write to the applicant setting out the reasons for the refusal and informing him of the remedies open to him, namely instituting court proceedings and/or making a complaint to the ombudsman.83 A failure to reply within the prescribed period will also entitle an applicant to initiate court proceedings and/or complain to the ombudsman.84 4– 020 Disclosure If access to a document is granted, the applicant may either consult it at the institution in question or receive a copy, including, where available, an electronic copy according to his preference. Consultation on the spot, direct access in electronic form or through the register or copies of fewer than 20 A4 pages are free.85 If the applicant is sent written documents exceeding 20 A4 pages the institution may charge the applicant although any charge must be limited to the real cost of producing and sending the copies.86 To assist visually impaired individuals, documents must be supplied either in an existing version and format or in an alternative format such as Braille, large print or tape with full regard to the applicant’s preference.87 The Regulation does not expressly make provision for an institution to give a response that neither confirms nor denies that the requested document is held by it.88 77

Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Commission of the European Communities [2005] 1 WLR 3302, [2005] All ER (EC) 813, [2005] ECR II–1121, [2006] 2 CMLR 60, [2005] 4 CMLR 21 which concerned an application for an administrative file containing 47,000 pages.

78

Sison v Council of European Union [2005] ECR II–1429, [2005] 2 CMLR 29 at [62]–[65].

79

Regulation 1049/2001 art 4(6). Case T–264/04 World Wildlife Foundation v Council of the European Union (ECJ 25 April 2007) at [50]. See further Case T-529/09 Sophie in 't Veld v Council of the European Union at [106].

80

Regulation 1049/2001 art 7(3).

81

Regulation 1049/2001 art 7(4).

82

Regulation 1049/2001 art 8(2).

83

Regulation 1049/2001 art 8(1). Article 230 EC lays down the conditions for instituting court proceedings, whilst art 95 EC lays down the conditions for making an application to the Ombudsman.

84

Regulation 1049/2001 art 8(3).

85

Regulation 1049/2001 art 10(1).

86

Regulation 1049/2001 art 10(1).

87

Regulation 1049/2001 art 10(3).

88

However, arguably such a response can be given where (or to the extent that) a request for information captures or would capture sensitive documents: see §4– 026.

115

CHAPTER 4 — RIGHTS OF ACCESS UNDER EUROPEAN UNION LAW 4– 021 Exceptions – general principles Article 4 sets out the various exceptions to the general right of access to documents. Uniquely amongst the comparative regimes, all the exceptions are mandatory: an institution must refuse access if a document falls within the terms of an exception.89 The exceptions are divided into absolute exceptions (in relation to which the public interest need not be considered) and qualified exceptions (which have a public interest ‘override’). In addition, certain sorts of documents are classed as ‘sensitive documents’. Disclosure of sensitive documents is governed by a special regime.90 The Regulation expressly recognises that the likelihood of harm from the disclosure of a document diminishes with time.91 Furthermore, the majority of exceptions cannot be invoked in relation to documents more than 30 years old. In the case of documents that are not ‘sensitive documents’, only those exceptions relating to privacy or commercial interest can be invoked thereafter. In the case of ‘sensitive documents’ all exceptions can be invoked irrespective of the age of the documents. The EU Courts have frequently stated that the exceptions are to be interpreted and applied restrictively so as not to frustrate application of the general principle of giving the public the widest possible access to documents held by the Commission.92 The onus is upon the institution to establish the applicability of an exception.93 Furthermore, if an institution decides to refuse access it must first explain how disclosure could actually undermine the interest protected by the exemption upon which it relies.94 4– 022 Prejudice and the public interest The measure of required harm to the interests protected by Arts 4(1) and 4(2) is that disclosure ‘would undermine the protection’ of either the public interest encapsulated in the interest (in the case of public security, defence and military matters, international relations and the financial, monetary or economic policy of the Community or a Member State) or the interest itself (in all other cases). The measure of required harm to the interests protected by article 4(3) is that disclosure ‘would seriously undermine the institution’s decision making process’. The Court of First Instance has made clear that it will be necessary for the institution to show ‘concretely and effectively’, and not generally or in an abstract fashion, that disclosure would undermine the decision-making process.95 Thus, unlike the harm-based exemptions in the 89

Sison v Council of European Union [2005] ECR II–1429, [2005] 2 CMLR 29 at [51]; Case T–264/04 World Wildlife Foundation v Council of the European Union (ECJ 25 April 2007) at [44].

90

Regulation 1049/2001 arts 2(5) and 4(7); see §4– 026.

91

Regulation 1049/2001 art 4(7).

92

Petrie v Commission of the European Communities [2002] 1 CMLR 18, [2002] CEC 57 at [66], a decision under Decisions 93/731 and 94/90; Case T-84/03 Turco v Council of the European Union [2004] ECR II–4061 at [60], [71]; Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Commission of the European Communities [2005] 1 WLR 3302, [2005] All ER (EC) 813, [2005] ECR II–1121, [2006] 2 CMLR 60, [2005] 4 CMLR 21 at [106]; Sison v Council of European Union [2005] ECR II–1429, [2005] 2 CMLR 29 at [45]; Franchet v Commission of the European Communities [2006] 3 CMLR 37 at [84]; Case T-36/04 Association de la presse internationale asbl v EC Commission [2007] ECR II-3201, [2007] 3 CMLR 51 at [51]-[53]; Case T-194/04 Bavarian Lager Co Ltd v EC Commission [2007] ECR II-4523, [2008] 1 CMLR 35 at [94].

93

Case T-264/04 WWF European Policy Programme v European Union Council (ECJ 25 April 2007) at [39].

94

Case C-280/11 P Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe, ECJ, 17 October 2013 at [31].

95

Case T-121/05 Borax Europe Ltd v EC Commission (CFI 11 March 2009) at [71]. See further Case T-344/08 EnBW Energie Baden-Wurttemberg v European Commission [2012] 5 CMLR 4 at [163]-[166].

116

REGULATION 1049/2001 Freedom of Information Act 2000, for the engagement of any of the exemptions in arts 4(1)–(3), a mere likelihood of harm would appear to be insufficient.96 It must be shown that the access in question was likely specifically and actually to undermine the interest protected by the exception.97 Moreover, the phrases ‘would undermine’ and ‘would seriously undermine’ used in arts 4(1)–(3) arguably set a higher threshold of harm than the phrase ‘would prejudice’ as used in the Freedom of Information Act 2000.98 In terms of the harm-based exceptions, the Court of First Instance has said that the: risk of a protected interest being undermined must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical.99

The public interest override in arts 4(2) and 4(3) is expressed as an exception. In Council v Access Info Europe,100 the European Court of Justice held that if the institution applies one of the article 4 exemptions it must weigh the particular interest to be protected through non-disclosure against the public interest in the document being made accessible. 4– 023 Absolute exceptions The absolute exceptions are contained in article 4(1). This provides that institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of: (a) the public interest as regards: — public security;101 — defence and military matters;102 — international relations;103 or — the financial, monetary or economic policy of the Community or a Member State;104 or (b) privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data.105 96

For a further discussion of the likelihood requirement in the FOIA and FOI(S)A, see §§15– 022 to 15– 025.

97

Case T-144/05 Muñiz v EC Commission (CFI 18 December 2008) at [74]. Case T-344/08 EnBW Energie Baden-Wurttemberg v European Commission [2012] 5 CMLR 4 at [162].

98

For a further discussion of the level of harm required in the FOIA and the FOI(S)A, see §15– 021. And see Case T-144/05 Muñiz v EC Commission (CFI 18 December 2008) at [75].

99

Franchet v Commission of the European Communities [2006] 3 CMLR 37 at [115]. Similarly Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities [2007] 1 CMLR 39 at [77] where the Court said that the task for the institution was to determine ‘whether access to the document would specifically and actually undermine the protected interest’.

100

Case C-280/11 P Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe, ECJ, 17 October 2013.

101

Public security would appear to embrace both what, in domestic legislation, is termed national security and matters of law enforcement. See §§17– 038 to 17– 044 and 20– 014 to 20– 024.

102

See §§17– 068 to 17– 077.

103

See §§18– 001 to 18– 007 and 25– 061 to 25– 064.

104

See §§19– 001 to 19– 009.

105

As with all disclosure regimes, the rights of public access to information held by public bodies may collide with the right of an individual not to have personal data unnecessarily disclosed. In Case T-121/05 Borax Europe Ltd v EC Commission (CFI 11 March 2009) the Court of First Instance held that the Commission had unlawfully based a refusal to supply a recording of an experts meeting on the privacy and integrity exception. The Court emphasised the requirement for the institution to explain how access to the document would specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected (at [37]). In that case, the Commission had relied on the privacy and integrity

117

CHAPTER 4 — RIGHTS OF ACCESS UNDER EUROPEAN UNION LAW 4– 024 Qualified exceptions: article 4(2) Article 4(2) provides that the institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of: — commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property;106 — court proceedings;107 — legal advice;108 and — the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits,109 unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. 4– 025 Qualified exceptions: article 4(3) Article 4(3) provides for a two-limbed qualified exception in relation to internal, deliberative documents: (1) Under the first limb, access to a document is to be refused where the decision to exception but had not pleaded specific ground pertaining to the risk of undermining the protection of privacy. Further, in relation to the protection of integrity, the Court held that the Commission had made its decision ‘on the basis of general grounds which are incapable of substantiating the existence’ of a risk. 106

In Postbank NV v Commission of the European Communities [1996] All ER (EC) 817, [1996] ECR II–921, [1997] 4 CMLR 33 at [87] the Court of First Instance stated that ‘business secrets’ concerns information of which not only disclosure to the public but also mere transmission to a person other than the one who provided the information may seriously harm the latter’s interests. It was noted in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v European Commission (ECJ, 16 December 2010) at [80] that such information should be known only to a limited number of persons. See further Case T-344/08 EnBW Energie Baden-Wurttemberg v European Commission [2012] 5 CMLR 4 at [135]-[143]. In relation to the corresponding exemption applicable in relation to a request for information held by a public authority in the United Kingdom, see §§25– 049 to 25– 060.

107

In Franchet v Commission of the European Communities [2006] 3 CMLR 37 at [88]–[89] the Court of First Instance concluded that this exception precluded the disclosure of the content of documents drawn up solely for the purposes of specific court proceedings. The words ‘documents drawn up solely for the purposes of specific court proceedings’ should be understood to mean the pleadings or other documents lodged, internal documents concerning the investigation of the case, and correspondence concerning the case between the Directorate-General concerned and the Legal Service or a lawyers’ office. The purpose of that definition of the scope of the exception was to ensure both the protection of work done within the Commission and confidentiality and the safeguarding of professional privilege for lawyers. In Petrie v Commission of the European Communities [2002] 1 CMLR 18, [2002] CEC 57 the Court of First Instance held that Member States are entitled to expect the Commission to guarantee confidentiality that might lead to infringement proceedings; this requirement of confidentiality remains even after the matter has been brought before the court. In relation to the corresponding exemption applicable in relation to a request for information held by a public authority in the United Kingdom, see ch 20.

108

In Turco v Council of the European Union [2004] ECR II–4061 the Court of First Instance rejected an argument from the applicant that only documents capable of undermining the protection of legal advice drawn up in the context of court proceedings are covered by the exemption. The Court said (at [62]): ‘the words “legal advice” must be understood as meaning that the protection of the public interest may preclude the disclosure of the contents of documents drawn up by the Council’s legal service in the context of court proceedings but also for any other purpose.’ The Court went on to observe (at [71]) that ‘the fact that the document in question is a legal opinion cannot, of itself, justify application of the exception relied upon’. The Court placed the burden of proof regarding the ‘public interest override’ on applicants, ruling also that the override could not be invoked in the general interest of transparency. In relation to the corresponding exemption applicable in relation to a request for information held by a public authority in the United Kingdom, see ch 21.

109

Franchet v Commission of the European Communities [2006] 3 CMLR 37 at [104]–[113]. See further: Case T-344/08 EnBW Energie Baden-Wurttemberg v European Commission [2012] 5 CMLR 4 at [125]-[126] in which a wide interpretation of ‘investigations’ put forward by the Commission was rejected as being incompatible with the object of providing the fullest possible effect to the right of access as required by recital 4 of the Regulation. In relation to the corresponding exemption applicable in relation to a request for information held by a public authority in the United Kingdom, see ch 20.

118

(2)

REGULATION 1049/2001 which the document relates has not been taken and disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process. All comparative regimes include such a provision, although article 4(3) would appear to impose a higher threshold of likely resultant harm than is required under the comparable provision in the Freedom of Information Act 2000.110 Under the second limb, even after the decision to which the document relates has been taken, access to a document is to be refused where that document contains ‘opinions for internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations’ and disclosure would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process. Again, such an exemption is common to all the comparative regimes, but the language of this exception imposes a higher threshold of harm to the protected interest than that imposed by the comparable provision in the Freedom of Information Act 2000.111

4– 026 Sensitive documents Sensitive documents are defined in article 9 to be those documents originating from the institutions, the agencies establishing them, from Member States, third countries or International Organisations112 that have been classified ‘Très Secret/Top Secret’, ‘Secret’ or ‘Confidential’ in accordance with the rules of the institution concerned. This system echoes that used in the United States pursuant to Executive Order.113 The expectation is that such documents will be concerned with public security, defence and military matters. Applications for sensitive documents may be handled only by persons who have a right to acquaint themselves with those documents.114 Sensitive documents shall be recorded in the register or released only with the consent of the originator.115 Whilst an institution remains under a duty to give reasons if it refuses to disclose a sensitive document caught by the terms of the request, the reasons need only be provided in such a manner that does not harm the interests protected in article 4.116 It is suggested that this might enable a neither confirm nor deny response, on the basis that in some circumstances any other response would indeed harm the interests protected in article 4.117

110

See ch 22.

111

See ch 22. In Case C-280/11 P Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe, (ECJ, 17 October 2013), the ECJ rejected a submission to the effect that the first paragraph would only apply where a fundamental interest of the European Union or Member States is involved.

112

As to the meaning of ‘international organisations’, see §18– 006.

113

See §17– 010(1).

114

Regulation 1049/2001 art 9(2). See Sison v Council of European Union [2005] ECR II–1429, [2005] 2 CMLR 29 which concerned sensitive documents. See further Joined Cases C-539/10 P and C-550/10 P Council of the European Union v European Commission (ECJ 15 November 2012) at [53].

115

Regulation 1049/2001 art 9(3).

116

Regulation 1049/2001 art 10(4).

117

For a further discussion on the need in some circumstances for a neither confirm nor deny response, see §§17– 060 to 17– 063 and 17– 066.

119

CHAPTER 4 — RIGHTS OF ACCESS UNDER EUROPEAN UNION LAW 4– 027 Third parties and Member State veto Where information in a document captured by a request originates from a ‘third party’ (in other words, from a legal person other than the institution to which the request is addressed), then, unless it is that the document does or does not fall within one of the exceptions in article 4(1) or (2), the institution receiving the request must consult that third party with a view to assessing whether any of the exceptions is applicable.118 It is suggested that in this situation, the third party could properly make submissions that an exception other than that proposed to be relied upon by the institution was applicable. It could also make submissions whether there was or was not an overriding public interest in disclosure. In addition to this provision, a Member State has a free-standing power to request that an institution shall not disclose a document originating from that Member State without its prior agreement.119 In effect, this gives the Member State from which a document originates the power of veto over the disclosure of such documents.120 The institution to which the request is made nevertheless remains responsible for the lawfulness of its decision. Accordingly, the institution cannot accept a refusal from a member state if it is given no reasons at all or if the reasons relied upon do not refer to art 4(1) or 4(2). However, there is no requirement to carry out an exhaustive assessment of the member state’s decision – the review is limited to verifying the mere existence of reasons under the permitted exemptions.121 Because of the expansive definition given to the word ‘document’, it is suggested that this will extend to a document (or that part of a document) generated within the institution but which reproduces information received from a Member State. 4– 028 Appeals The European Union has two courts: — The Court of First Instance, which is the lower court. It deals with cases where individuals sue the EU institutions. Because most appeals against refusal of access to documents involve an institution denying an individual access to documents, the majority are heard before the Court of First Instance. — The European Court of Justice. This court hears appeals against the judgments of the Court of First Instance (by individuals, by EU institutions or by Member States). It also hears cases where one EU institution sues another and cases between the EU 118

Regulation 1049/2001 art 4(4). In IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds GmbH v Commission of the European Communities [2005] 1 WLR 1252, [2005] 2 CMLR 28 the Court of First Instance said: ‘consultation of the third party is, as a general rule, a precondition for determining whether the exceptions to the right of access provided for in art 4(1) and (2) of the Regulation are applicable in the case of third-party documents’ (at [55]). The consultation procedure is further spelled out in Commission Decision 2001/937/EC art 5. The involvement of third parties is considerably stronger than that provided for under the FOIA and FOI(S)A: see §§11– 041 to 11– 049. Case T–198/03 Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG v Commission [2006] ECR II-1429, [2006] 5 CMLR 10 at [71].

119

Regulation 1049/2001 art 4(5). The procedure is further spelled out in Commission Decision 2001/937/EC art 5. See, eg: Case T-187/03Scippacercola v Commission of the European Communities [2005] 2 CMLR 54; IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds GmbH v Commission of the European Communities [2005] 1 WLR 1252, [2005] 2 CMLR 28; Case T-380/04 Terezakis v European Commission (CFI 30 January 2008) at [39].

120

Mara Messina v Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECR II–3203, [2005] 2 CMLR 21; IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds GmbH v Commission of the European Communities [2005] 1 WLR 1252, [2005] 2 CMLR 28 (holding that where the originating Member State has requested that a document not be disclosed, the application for access to that document is governed by the relevant national provisions and not by the Regulation).

121

Case C-135/11 P IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH v Commission (ECJ, 21 June 2012) at [60]-[64].

120

REGULATION 1049/2001 institutions and the Member States. The European Court of Justices also answers questions about EU law referred from national courts. The European Court of Justice is assisted by Advocates General, who release a non-binding but influential Opinion about how to decide each case before the Court’s judgment. The courts cannot order the EU institutions to release documents. Instead, they have the more limited power to annul an institution’s refusal to release them. This leaves the institution free to refuse access to the information requested on other grounds. The intensity of review of decisions by European Institutions refusing access was considered by the European Court of Justice in Sison v Council.122 The European Court of Justice dismissed Mr Sison’s appeal against the Court of First Instance’s rejection of his challenge to the Council’s refusal to disclose certain documents on the grounds that they fell within the ambit of article 4(1)(a). The Court stated: ...the Court of First Instance…correctly held…as regards the scope of the judicial review of the legality of a decision of the Council refusing public access to a document on the basis of one of the exceptions relating to the public interest provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, that the Council must be recognised to have a wide discretion for the purpose of determining whether the disclosure of documents relating to the fields covered by those exceptions could undermine the public interest. The Court of First Instance also correctly held…that the Community Court’s review of the legality of such a decision must therefore be limited to verifying whether the procedural rules and the duty to state reasons have been complied with, whether the facts have been accurately stated, and whether there has been a manifest error of assessment or a misuse of powers.123

122

[2005] ECR II–1429, [2005] 2 CMLR 29.

123

[2005] ECR II–1429, [2005] 2 CMLR 29 at [47].

121

CHAPTER 5

Access to Personal Information under the Data Protection Act 1998 Chapter 5 – Access to Personal Information under the Data Protection Act 1998 Antony White QC Page 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 5– 001 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 5– 002 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 5– 003 Comparative jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5– 004 Origins of the access right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 5– 005 The Data Protection Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 5– 006 Interpretation in accordance with the Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 5– 007 Code of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 5– 008 Personal information about third parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 5– 009 Overriding nature of the access rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 5– 010 Transitional provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 5– 011 Extra-territoriality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 2. THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHTS: PERSONAL DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 5– 012 Types of information to which the access right applies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 5– 013 Meaning of ‘data’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 5– 014 Data class 1: automatically processed data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 5– 015 Data class 2: information recorded with the intention that it be automatically processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 5– 016 Data class 3: information within a relevant filing system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 5– 017 Data class 3: jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 5– 018 Data class 3: examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 5– 019 Data class 4: accessible records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 5– 020 Data class 4: jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 5– 021 Data class 5: other recorded information held by a public authority . . . . . . . 137 5– 022 Archived data, backup data and deleted data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 5– 023 Meaning of ‘personal data’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 5– 024 An individual identifiable from the data: paragraph (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5– 025 An individual identifiable from the data in conjunction with other information: paragraph (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5– 026 The data must relate to the indentifiable individual – the Durant approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 5– 027 Guidance and decisions following Durant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5– 028 The Common Services Agency approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 5– 029 Anonymised data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 5– 030 Meaning of ‘data subject’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

122

GENERAL PRINCIPLES 5– 031 Meaning of ‘data controller’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 5– 032 Data controller: guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 5– 033 Meaning of ‘processing’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 3. THE NATURE OF THE RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5– 034 The four access-related rights granted by the Data Protection Act 1998 . . . . 148 5– 035 First right: to be informed whether data are being processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5– 036 Second right: description of data, purposes of processing and recipients . . . . 148 5– 037 Third right: information itself and information as to source . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 5– 038 Fourth right: logic involved in automated decision-taking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 4. THE REQUEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 5– 039 Form of request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 5– 040 Requests made by an agent on behalf of adult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 5– 041 Requests by children and mentally incapacitated adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 5– 042 Scope of request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 5– 043 Particularising the request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 5– 044 Unstructured personal data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 5– 045 Significance of unstructured personal data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 5– 046 Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 5– 047 Vexatious requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 5– 048 Limited request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 5. THE RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 5– 049 Data that also relate to a third party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 5– 050 Time for compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 5– 051 Manner of compliance: data at time request received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 5– 052 Manner of compliance: the right to a copy of the information . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5– 053 Use by data subject of information supplied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5– 054 Proscription against compulsion to share information received . . . . . . . . . . . 157 5– 055 Certificates under the Police Act 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 5– 056 Use of information required: health records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 6. DISENTITLEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 5– 057 Multiple and repeat requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 5– 058 Excessive cost of compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 7. EXEMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 5– 059 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 5– 060 The Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 5– 061 National security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 5– 062 Crime detection and tax collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 5– 063 Health information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5– 064 Educational records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 5– 065 Health records of a deceased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 5– 066 Social work records: the power to exempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 5– 067 Social work records: the exemption order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 5– 068 Prejudice to regulatory activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 5– 069 Journalism, literature and art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

123

CHAPTER 5 — ACCESS TO PERSONAL INFORMATION UNDER THE DPA 1998 5– 070 Information held only for research purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 071 Manual data relating to Crown employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 072 Information otherwise available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 073 Parliamentary privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 074 Legal professional privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 075 Domestic purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 076 Confidential references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 077 Judicial appointments and honours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 078 Crown employment and Crown or Ministerial appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 079 Armed forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 080 Management forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 081 Corporate finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 082 Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 083 Examination marks and scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 084 Self-incrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 085 Disclosure prohibited by other legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. APPEALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 086 Two routes of appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 087 Ordinary appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 088 National security certificate appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 089 Procedure on appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 090 Request for an assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 091 Enforcement notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 092 Cancellation or variation of an enforcement notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 093 Appeal against an enforcement notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 094 Non-compliance with an enforcement notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 095 Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 096 Rectification and destruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 097 Failure to comply with enforcement or information notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 098 Monetary penalty notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 099 Unlawful obtaining of personal data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 100 Disclosure by Commissioner or Commissioner’s staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 101 Enforced subject access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5– 102 Prosecutions and penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.

168 169 169 169 170 170 170 170 170 171 171 171 172 172 172 173 173 173 174 175 175 175 175 176 177 177 177 178 178 179 179 179 180 180 180

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

5– 001 Introduction Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 19981 confers upon an individual a right of access to 1

The DPA applies equally to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Data protection is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998 and, accordingly, is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament: see Scotland Act 1998 s 27(2)(b) and Sch 5, and §1– 037. As a matter of drafting convention rather than necessity,

124

GENERAL PRINCIPLES personal data of which that individual is the subject, together with three associated rights.2 These rights are collectively referred to as ‘subject access rights’. They form one aspect of the Data Protection Act 1998. Broadly speaking, that Act: — controls the processing of personal data by prescribing certain data protection principles and imposing a duty on those who control personal data to comply with those principles; — confers individual rights of access to and, to a limited extent, control over, personal information; and — provides for the regulation and enforcement of those rights and duties.3 This chapter is concerned with subject access rights in relation to information held by public authorities.4 The right of access within the subject access rights is qualified by a number of exemptions, as is the case with the right of access to information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 5– 002 Overview The access regime created by the Data Protection Act 1998 co-exists with those created by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.5 A single request for information made to a public authority may straddle any combination of these regimes. The statutory source of an applicant’s right of access to information held by a public authority will define the scope of the right, the available exemptions and the applicant’s right of appeal. For each unit of information captured by a request, that statutory source is determined by reference to the nature of the information (whether or not it is ‘personal data’) and by its relationship to the applicant (whether or not it is personal data ‘relating to the applicant’). In summary: (1) In relation to personal data6 that relate to the applicant himself and no one else, the right of access to that information falls to be determined by the Data Protection Act 1998.7 Neither the Freedom of Information Act 2000 nor the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 will impinge upon the applicant’s right of access to the DPA is expressly stated to apply to Northern Ireland: s 75(5) and (6). 2

The four rights are set out at §5– 034.

3

Other than those relating to the subject access rights, the provisions of the DPA are beyond the scope of this work. For a general treatment of the DPA, see: S Chalton, S Gaskill, D Walden and H Grant, Encyclopaedia of Data Protection, Sweet & Maxwell, looseleaf service; R Jay, Data Protection Law and Practice, 4th edn (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2012); P Carey, Data Protection: A Practical Guide to UK and EU law, 3rd edn (London, Oxford University Press, 2009).

4

The rights of access to personal information conferred by the DPA, unlike the rights of access to information conferred by the FOIA, are not confined to information held by a public authority. To the extent that the DPA confers rights of access to personal information held by a person or body other than a public authority, those rights are beyond the scope of this work, although the basic rights, exemptions and procedures are, with the exception of unstructured personal data, the same irrespective of the identity of the person or body holding the personal information.

5

And, in relation to Scottish public authorities, those created by the FOI(S)A and the EI(S)R.

6

As to the meaning of which, see §§5– 023 to 5– 030.

7

If a request were made for this sort of information under the FOIA, the public authority would be entitled to refuse the request without any consideration of the public interest: see s 40 of that Act; FOI(S)A s 38.

125

CHAPTER 5 — ACCESS TO PERSONAL INFORMATION UNDER THE DPA 1998 that information.8 (2) In relation to personal data that relates both to the applicant and another individual, to the extent that the information can be disclosed without revealing the identity of that other individual or the individual has consented to disclosure or it would be reasonable not to secure that consent, the right of access to that information falls to be determined by the Data Protection Act 1998.9 To the extent that these conditions cannot be met, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, or in respect of ‘environmental information’, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, will govern the applicant’s right of access to that information.10 (3) In relation to personal data that relate to an individual (other than the applicant), the applicant’s right of access to that information will fall to be determined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or, to the extent that that personal data is also ‘environmental information’,11 by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.12 The Act and the Regulations each provide a specific exemption for certain sorts of personal data relating to an individual other than the applicant.13 This exemption is considered in Chapter 24. (4) In relation to information that is not personal data relating to an individual, the applicant’s right of access will fall to be determined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or, to the extent that that information is ‘environmental information’,14 by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.15 (5) Where the request for information is made by a corporate entity, its right of access will fall to be determined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or, to the extent that ‘environmental information’16 is captured by the request, by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.17 A corporate entity has no right of access to information under the Data Protection Act 1998. To the extent that the request captures information relating to an individual, the Act and the Regulations each provide a specific exemption for certain sorts of personal data.18 This exemption 8

FOIA s 40(1); EIR reg 5(3). See Wise v Information Commissioner, First-Tier Tribunal, 3 February 2010. Nor, in relation to a request for information made of a Scottish public authority, will the FOI(S)A or the EI(S)R impinge upon the applicant’s right of access: FOI(S)A s 38(1)(a); EI(S)R reg 11(1).

9

DPA ss 7(4)–(6) and 8(7). See further §5– 049.

10

FOIA s 40(1); EIR reg 5(3). Nor, in relation to a request for information made of a Scottish public authority, will the FOI(S)A or the EI(S)R impinge upon the applicant’s right of access: FOI(S)A s 38(1)(a); EI(S)R reg 11(1).

11

As to the meaning of which, see §6– 010.

12

Where the request for information is made to a Scottish public authority, it will fall to be determined by the FOI(S)A and the EI(S)R, respectively.

13

FOIA s 40(2)–(4); FOI(S)A s 38(1)(b), (2), (3); EIR regs 12(3), 13; EI(S)R reg 10(3), 11(2)–(5).

14

As to the meaning of which, see §6– 010.

15

Where the request for information is made to a Scottish public authority, it will fall to be determined by the FOI(S)A and the EI(S)R, respectively.

16

As to the meaning of which, see §6– 010.

17

Where the request for information is made to a Scottish public authority, it will fall to be determined by the FOI(S)A and the EI(S)R, respectively.

18

FOIA s 40(2)–(4); FOI(S)A s 38(1)(b), (2), (3); EIR regs 12(3), 13; EI(S)R reg 10(3), 11(2)–(5).

126

GENERAL PRINCIPLES is considered in Chapter 24. 5– 003 Comparative jurisdictions This separate legislative treatment of the right of access to information relating to the applicant is common, but not universal, amongst the comparative jurisdictions. Thus: (1) In the United States of America, the Privacy Act confers an additional, enhanced right of access to personal information, in addition to that enjoyed under the general right of access conferred by the Freedom of Information Act.19 (2) In Australia, the right of access to personal information is that given by the Freedom of Information Act 1982, although the Privacy Act 1988 impinges upon the exercise of that right where personal information is sought.20 (3) In New Zealand, the right of access to personal information was originally embodied within the general right of access to information in the Official Information Act 1982. In 1993 the right of access to personal information relating to the applicant was transferred to the Privacy Act 1993.21 (4) In Canada, the right of access to personal information under the control of a government institution is governed by the Privacy Act, which came into force at the same time as the Access to Information Act.22 (5) In the Republic of Ireland, the right of access to personal information is embodied in the general right of access to records held by a public body conferred by the Freedom of Information Act 1997.23 The United Kingdom is unusual in that the legislation protecting privacy24 and, as part of that protection, giving a person a right of access to information relating to himself, long predated the legislation conferring a general right of access to information. Typically, statutory protection of an individual’s privacy is exercisable against more than just public authorities. Thus, the focus of the Data Protection Act 1998 is the processing of personal data, irrespective of the identity of the body or person processing those data. Freedom of information legislation, on the other hand, is invariably concerned with information held by public authorities, and not with information held by private bodies. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 amended the Data Protection Act 1998 so as to expand the right of access given by the latter to cover all forms of recorded information held by a public authority relating to an individual.25 The statutory division of the right of access to information held by a public authority according to whether the requested information is or is not the applicant’s personal data is more readily understood when this legislative chronology and the provenance of the Data Protection Act 1998 are borne in mind. 19

See §2– 002.

20

See §2– 015(15).

21

See §2– 017.

22

See §2– 025. Personal information is a mandatory exemption under the Access to Information Act: see §2– 031(3).

23

See §2– 034. There is an exemption from disclosure where the personal information is not related to the applicant: see §2– 039(7).

24

Initially the Data Protection Act 1984 and, subsequently, the DPA.

25

By the addition of para (e) of the definition of ‘data’ in DPA s 1(1). See also n 40.

127

CHAPTER 5 — ACCESS TO PERSONAL INFORMATION UNDER THE DPA 1998 5– 004 Origins of the access right The predecessor to the Data Protection Act 1998 was the Data Protection Act 1984. It was more limited in scope than the Data Protection Act 1998, in particular being confined to ‘automated data’.26 However, it did grant an individual certain rights of access in respect of personal information: — a right to be informed whether personal data about him or her were being processed; — a right to be supplied with a copy of the information constituting any such personal data; and — an explanation, if one was necessary, to understand the information supplied.27 Those rights of access were subject to a number of exemptions. The Data Protection Act 1984 had its origins, in part, in the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1981.28 Specific rights of access to personal information were also provided subsequently by a number of individual statutes: for example, the Access to Personal Files Act 198729 and the Access to Health Records Act 1990.30 5– 005 The Data Protection Directive In 1995 the European Council issued what is generally termed the ‘Data Protection Directive’.31 This Directive applies not only to automated data32 but also to certain types of manually stored data,33 and it confers on the data subject a number of rights. These again include rights of access to personal data. Member States are required to guarantee data subjects the right to obtain from a data controller: — confirmation whether personal data about them are being processed; — information at least as to the purposes of such processing and the recipients or categories of recipients to whom the data are disclosed; — the data themselves in an intelligible form, together with any available information as to their source; and — knowledge of the logic involved in any automatic processing of data in the case of certain automated decisions.34 26

Effectively, information falling within either paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of ‘data’ in DPA s 1(1).

27

Data Protection Act 1984 s 21.

28

Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, 28 January 1981, ETS No 108.

29

The Act repealed by the DPA s 74(2), Sch 16, Pt I, as from 1 March 2000.

30

Except for the sections dealing with requests for access to records relating to deceased patients, this Act was repealed by DPA, s 74(2), Sch 16, Pt I, as from March 2000. See further §5– 063.

31

Council Directive 95/46/EC, [1995] OJ L281/31.

32

Effectively, information falling within either paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of ‘data’ in DPA s 1(1). The Data Protection Act 1984 was only concerned with ‘automated data’.

33

Council Directive 95/46/EC art 2(c) and 3(1).

34

Council Directive 95/46/EC art 12(a).

128

GENERAL PRINCIPLES These rights are to be available to individuals without constraint at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense.35 5– 006 Interpretation in accordance with the Directive Member States were required to implement the Data Protection Directive by 24 October 1998. Implementation in the United Kingdom was by the enactment of the Data Protection Act 1998, which was brought fully into force on 1 March 2000. In the light of its origins in Directive 95/46/EC, much of the Data Protection Act 1998 must be construed in a purposive fashion, having regard to the aims of the Directive.36 Both the Data Protection Directive and the Data Protection Act 1998 were principally directed at automated data37 or organised data relating to an individual: neither applied to certain types of manually stored data. The right of access conferred by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is indifferent to the distinctions between manually stored data and automated data. The unit of disclosure and of exemption is ‘information’,38 with exemptions being based either upon the likelihood of an identified harm resulting from disclosure or on the basis of the information falling within a class description.39 In order to maintain parity between the scope of the disclosure right conferred by each Act, it was necessary to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 in order to make it apply to all manually stored data held by a public authority.40 The Directive is specifically linked to the need to respect ‘fundamental rights and freedoms, notably the right to privacy’ and it refers in that respect to the European Convention on Human Rights.41 The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly noted that under Directive the object of national laws on the processing of personal data should be to protect the right to privacy as recognised both in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the general principles of Community law.42 35

Council Directive 95/46/EC art 12(a)

36

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1373, [2003] QB 633 at [97] (the decision of the Court of Appeal was overturned on different grounds by the House of Lords: Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457); Durant v Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA 1746, [2004] FSR 28 at [3]; R (Lord) v SSHD [2003] EWHC 2073 (Admin) at [90]–[93]; Johnson v Medical Defence Union [2007] EWCA Civ 262, [2007] 3 CMLR 9, (2007) 96 BMLR 99 at [88]-[93]; South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish IC [2013] UKSC 55, 2013 GWD 25-508, 2013 SLT 799, [2013] 1 WLR 2421 at [7]; (Case C-468/10) Asociacion Nacional de Establecimientos Financieros de Credito v Administracion del Estado [2012] 1 CMLR 48.

37

Effectively, information falling within either paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of ‘data’ in DPA s 1(1).

38

Defined to mean ‘recorded information’: FOIA s 84; FOI(S)A s 73.

39

See §§14– 015 to 14– 023.

40

Thus, the FOIA ss 68–73 effected the following amendments to the DPA: (1) the definition of ‘data’ was enlarged to include all recorded information held by a public authority; (2) ‘held’ was given the same meaning as in the FOIA; (3) ‘public authority’ was given the same meaning as in the FOIA; (4) a special provision, s 9A, was introduced to deal with unstructured personal data held by public authorities; (5) a limited ground of exemption, s 33A, was introduced to protect certain types of manual data held by a public authority; and (6) a further exemption, s 35A, was introduced to protect from disclosure where that was required to avoid an infringement of the privileges of either House of Parliament.

41

Preamble (2) and (10).

42

MM v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1906 at [145]. See further Marper v United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1581, (2009) 48 EHRR 50. Similarly, the European Court of Justice has repeatedly noted that ‘the protection of the fundamental right to privacy requires that derogations and limitations in relation to the protection of personal data must apply only in so far as is strictly necessary’: Case C-473/12 Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers v Geoffrey Englebertat [2013] ECR at [39]; Case C-73/07 Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia [2008] ECR I-9831, [2010] All ER (EC) 213 at [56]; C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke and Eifert [2010] ECR I-11063 at [77], [86].

129

CHAPTER 5 — ACCESS TO PERSONAL INFORMATION UNDER THE DPA 1998 As the Court has noted:

There are various crucial stages at which data protection issues under Article 8 of the Convention may arise, including during collection, storage, use and communication of data. At each stage, appropriate and adequate safeguards which reflect the principles elaborated in applicable data protection instruments and prevent arbitrary and disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights must be in place.43

5– 007 Code of Practice Pursuant to s 51 of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Information Commissioner has issued a Code of Practice on subject access requests.44 The Code gives advice on good practice. Compliance with its recommendations is not mandatory where those recommendations go beyond the requirements of the 1998 Act. The Code does not have the force of law. 5– 008 Personal information about third parties As noted above, to the extent that a request for information captures personal information about a third party, the applicant’s right of access to that information is governed by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and not by the Data Protection Act 1998. The principles relating to the disclosure of such information are considered in Chapter 24. In broad terms, the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are designed to ensure that such information is only provided under that Act if it could have been disclosed under the Data Protection Act 1998 both to the data subject and to the person making the request. Thus, information is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 if: (a) disclosure to a member of the public would breach any of the data protection principles;45 (b) in the case of most types of personal data46 disclosure would contravene the individual’s right under s 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress;47 or (c) the information is exempt from the subject access rights of the Data Protection Act 1998.48 In Scotland, there are also exemptions under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 in respect of personal census information and a deceased person’s health record.49 5– 009 Overriding nature of the access rights Subject access rights enjoy a general paramountcy over rules preventing disclosure of information. Section 27(5) of the Data Protection Act 1998 provides that, subject only to 43

MM v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1906 at [195].

44

Information Commissioner, Subject access code of practice, August 2013. Available at:

www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guidance_index/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protectio n/Detailed_specialist_guides/subject-access-code-of-practice.PDF 45

FOIA s 40(2), (3)(a)(i), (3)(b); FOI(S)A s 38(1)(b), (2)(a)(i), (2)(b).

46

As to which see §§5– 023 to 5– 026.

47

FOIA s 40(3)(b); FOI(S)A s 38(2)(b).

48

FOIA s 40(4); FOI(S)A s 38(3).

49

FOI(S)A s 38(1)(c), (d).

130

GENERAL PRINCIPLES specific exemptions provided by that Act, the subject access rights50 have effect notwithstanding any legislative provision or rule of law prohibiting or restricting the disclosure, or authorising the withholding, of information.51 The Secretary of State does have a power to exempt from the subject access rights information the disclosure of which is subject to such a prohibition or restriction under other legislation, provided that he considers it necessary for safeguarding the interests of the data subject or the rights and freedoms of any other individual that the prohibition or restriction ought to prevail over the subject access provisions.52 This paramountcy marks a fundamental difference between the right of access conferred by the Data Protection Act 1998 and the right of access conferred by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The latter Act provides an absolute exemption for information the disclosure of which is prohibited by or under any enactment.53 5– 010 Transitional provisions Upon the coming into force of the Data Protection Act 1998 on 1 March 2000, its requirements applied in respect of all personal data being processed by a data controller, unless the data controller could take advantage of transitional exemptions. Certain transitional exemptions were available until 24 October 2001, and a further set was available until 24 October 2007. The only remaining exemptions relate to historical research and processing that was underway as at 24 October 1998.54 There are also transitional provisions in respect of rights of data subjects under the Data Protection Act 1984 that were repealed by the Data Protection Act 1998. By virtue of these provisions, the repeals do not affect the application of the relevant provisions in respect of requests made pursuant to the right of access to personal data prior to the date of repeal;55 compensation in respect of damage or distress suffered by reason of anything done or not done prior to the date of repeal;56 and applications to the court for orders for rectification or erasure made before the date of repeal.57 5– 011 Extra-territoriality The subject access rights are enjoyed by individuals regardless of their nationality or residence: the application of the Data Protection Act 1998 is determined by reference to the data controller and the data themselves.58 The Act applies: (1) To data controllers established in the United Kingdom59 in respect of data 50

Together with the first data protection principle, referred to as the ‘subject information provisions’: DPA s 27(2), (5).

51

DPA s 27(5).

52

DPA s 38(1). See further at §5– 085.

53

FOIA s 44(1)(a); FOI(S)A s 26(a). These provisions are considered in detail in §§26– 015 to 26– 024.

54

DPA s 39, Sch 8.

55

DPA Sch 14, para 3(1).

56

DPA s 39, Sch 14, para 3(4).

57

DPA Sch 14, para 3(5).

58

DPA s 5.

59

That is, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ir