Dr Sam Raphael v Information Commissioner & Anor

Dr Sam Raphael v Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that all the requested aggregate figures fell within the scope of section 23(1) FOIA (or alternatively section 24(1)), as they related to or were supplied by security bodies, and that disaggregation was not possible. Even if section 27(1)(a) applied, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure, given the real risk of prejudice to international relations and national security, as supported by both open and closed evidence. The appeal could not succeed if section 23(1) applied to all the information.

Parties
Appellant: Dr Sam Raphael; Respondent: Information Commissioner; Respondent: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2024
Procedural Posture
FOIA Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
FOIA Exemptions, National Security, International Relations, Defence, Public Interest Balancing, Intelligence Sharing, Mosaic Effect
Information Law National Security Law International Relations Law FOIA Exemptions National Security International Relations Defence Public Interest Balancing +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Sam Raphael

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Ministry of Defence

Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOIA Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the MOD is entitled to withhold aggregate figures on ministerial consultation and approval for intelligence sharing under FOIA sections 23(1), 24(1), 26(1)(b), and 27(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the exemptions
  3. 3 Whether previously disclosed similar information affects the current exemption claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that all the requested aggregate figures fell within the scope of section 23(1) FOIA (or alternatively section 24(1)), as they related to or were supplied by security bodies, and that disaggregation was not possible. Even if section 27(1)(a) applied, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure, given the real risk of prejudice to international relations and national security, as supported by both open and closed evidence. The appeal could not succeed if section 23(1) applied to all the information.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed