Edward Williams v The Information Commissioner

Edward Williams v The Information Commissioner

The GMCA was entitled to withhold certain information under section 36(2)(c) FOIA where disclosure would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, particularly where it would deter victims from engaging with the authority. However, for other sections, the risk of prejudice was low and the public interest in disclosure outweighed the interest in maintaining the exemption. The qualified person’s opinion was substantively reasonable for the information withheld under section 36(2)(c), but not for the remaining redacted sections.

Parties
Appellant: Edward Williams; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Greater Manchester Combined Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (information Rights) / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Public Interest Test, Prejudice to Public Affairs, Disclosure of Official Correspondence
Information Law Administrative Law Freedom of Information Public Interest Test Prejudice to Public Affairs Disclosure of Official Correspondence

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

Parties

Edward Williams

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Greater Manchester Combined Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) was entitled to withhold information under section 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
  2. 2 Whether the opinion of the qualified person was reasonable
  3. 3 Whether the public interest favoured disclosure or maintaining the exemption

Ratio Decidendi

The GMCA was entitled to withhold certain information under section 36(2)(c) FOIA where disclosure would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, particularly where it would deter victims from engaging with the authority. However, for other sections, the risk of prejudice was low and the public interest in disclosure outweighed the interest in maintaining the exemption. The qualified person’s opinion was substantively reasonable for the information withheld under section 36(2)(c), but not for the remaining redacted sections.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The GMCA is not required to take any steps in relation to Information A (already released).
  • The GMCA is entitled to withhold Information B as it is outside the scope of the request.