Edmund Willison v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Edmund Willison v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Section 31(1)(g) read with section 31(2)(b) or (d) FOIA is not engaged because the claimed prejudice (to deterrence, public misunderstanding, or operational sensitivity) does not relate to the ascertainment of improper conduct or fitness/competence. Disclosure of the requested data (which is zero for both APFs and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Edmund Willison; Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Respondent: UK Anti-Doping
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Information Rights Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Law Enforcement Exemptions, Disclosure of Regulatory Data, Public Interest Test
Information Law Administrative Law Sports Law Freedom of Information Law Enforcement Exemptions Disclosure of Regulatory Data Public Interest Test

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edmund Willison

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

UK Anti-Doping

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Information Rights Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UK Anti-Doping was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) (read with section 31(2)(b) or (d)) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to withhold information on Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) findings and charges.
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of the requested information would or would be likely to prejudice UKAD’s functions for the purposes of ascertaining improper conduct or fitness/competence under section 31 FOIA.
  3. 3 Whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 31(1)(g) read with section 31(2)(b) or (d) FOIA is not engaged because the claimed prejudice (to deterrence, public misunderstanding, or operational sensitivity) does not relate to the ascertainment of improper conduct or fitness/competence. Disclosure of the requested data (which is zero for both APFs and charges) would not provide athletes with any new information to evade detection, would not prejudice UKAD’s ability to ascertain improper conduct, and would not cause real or significant harm to UKAD’s regulatory functions. The Commissioner erred in concluding the exemption was engaged; the appeal is allowed and the information must be disclosed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • UK Anti-Doping must disclose the withheld information (number of ABP 'likely doping' findings and charges) to Mr Willison within 42 days of the decision.