Jenna Corderoy v Information Commissioner & Anor

Jenna Corderoy v Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that the withheld material constituted personal data as individuals could be identified directly or indirectly, and disclosure would contravene data protection principles under Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR. The legitimate interest in disclosure did not outweigh the privacy rights of the data subjects. The Second Respondent was entitled to rely on the exemptions under s.40(2)(3A)(a) FOIA, and, where relevant, ss.30 and 38 FOIA. The appeal was allowed in part only to the extent that some information was disclosed during the proceedings, but the remaining redacted material was lawfully withheld.

Parties
Appellant: Jenna Corderoy; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2024
Procedural Posture
FOIA Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Lawful Processing, Police Misconduct, Public Interest Test, Health and Safety Exemption
Information Law Data Protection Administrative Law Freedom of Information Personal Data Lawful Processing Police Misconduct Public Interest Test +1 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jenna Corderoy

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOIA Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Respondent was entitled to withhold redacted information under sections 40(2), 30, and 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of redacted material would contravene data protection principles under the UK GDPR
  3. 3 Whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy rights of the data subjects

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the withheld material constituted personal data as individuals could be identified directly or indirectly, and disclosure would contravene data protection principles under Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR. The legitimate interest in disclosure did not outweigh the privacy rights of the data subjects. The Second Respondent was entitled to rely on the exemptions under s.40(2)(3A)(a) FOIA, and, where relevant, ss.30 and 38 FOIA. The appeal was allowed in part only to the extent that some information was disclosed during the proceedings, but the remaining redacted material was lawfully withheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The Second Respondent has disclosed information in full in response to Requests 1(a) and 2(a).
  • The Second Respondent has disclosed redacted copies of messages and posts in response to Requests 1(b) and (c) and 2(b) and (c).