Article 39 v The Information Commissioner

Article 39 v The Information Commissioner

Although section 36(2)(c) FOIA was engaged by a reasonable opinion of the qualified person, the public interest in disclosure of the Report outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption. There was insufficient evidence that disclosure would damage the working relationship between the DfE and the Panel or have a chilling effect. The need for transparency in child safeguarding, the vulnerability of children in care, and the public benefit of scrutiny and learning from such reports justified disclosure, subject to redaction of personal data.

Parties
Appellant: Article 39; Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Information Rights Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Public Interest Test, Qualified Exemptions, Child Safeguarding, Government Transparency
Information Law Administrative Law Child Protection Freedom of Information Public Interest Test Qualified Exemptions Child Safeguarding Government Transparency

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Article 39

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Information Rights Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) was engaged in respect of the requested information
  2. 2 Whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure of the information

Ratio Decidendi

Although section 36(2)(c) FOIA was engaged by a reasonable opinion of the qualified person, the public interest in disclosure of the Report outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption. There was insufficient evidence that disclosure would damage the working relationship between the DfE and the Panel or have a chilling effect. The need for transparency in child safeguarding, the vulnerability of children in care, and the public benefit of scrutiny and learning from such reports justified disclosure, subject to redaction of personal data.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Department for Education breached section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by not responding to the request within twenty working days.
  • The Department for Education is not entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to withhold the requested information.