Ian Hudson v The Information Commissioner

Ian Hudson v The Information Commissioner

The Tribunal found that Sussex Police correctly relied on s.30(3) FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information, as the information, if held, would relate to an ongoing and unsolved criminal investigation. The public interest in maintaining the exemption and protecting the effectiveness of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ian Hudson; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
FOIA Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Determination on the Papers
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Public Interest Test, Law Enforcement Exemptions
Information Law Administrative Law Freedom of Information Public Interest Test Law Enforcement Exemptions

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Hudson

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOIA Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Determination on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sussex Police correctly relied on s.30(3) FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding information about Chief Constable Giles York's attendance at Gatwick Airport in December 2018
  2. 2 Whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Sussex Police correctly relied on s.30(3) FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information, as the information, if held, would relate to an ongoing and unsolved criminal investigation. The public interest in maintaining the exemption and protecting the effectiveness of police investigations and future prosecutions outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Disclosure would not serve the purpose of testing Mr York’s credibility and could prejudice policing and investigations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed