Jon Austin v Information Commissioner & Anor

Jon Austin v Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that the requested information is not criminal offence data but is personal data. The legitimate interest in transparency regarding police misconduct, especially given the officer’s identity and summary already being public, outweighs the officer’s residual expectation of privacy. The Notice of Outcome can be disclosed with redactions to protect third-party identities. The LQC’s views are relevant but not determinative; the Tribunal must apply the FOIA balancing test independently.

Parties
Appellant: Jon Austin; Respondent: Information Commissioner; Respondent: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Information Rights Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Police Misconduct, Public Interest, Data Subject Rights
Information Law Data Protection Administrative Law Freedom of Information Personal Data Police Misconduct Public Interest Data Subject Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jon Austin

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Information Rights Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requested police misconduct outcome summary is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) FOIA as personal data
  2. 2 Whether the information constitutes criminal offence data under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR
  3. 3 Whether the legitimate interest in disclosure outweighs the officer’s rights and freedoms under data protection law

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the requested information is not criminal offence data but is personal data. The legitimate interest in transparency regarding police misconduct, especially given the officer’s identity and summary already being public, outweighs the officer’s residual expectation of privacy. The Notice of Outcome can be disclosed with redactions to protect third-party identities. The LQC’s views are relevant but not determinative; the Tribunal must apply the FOIA balancing test independently.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Metropolitan Police Service must disclose the requested information to the appellant, subject to redactions of all police officers’ names, the member of the public, and a specific street name.
  • Disclosure must occur within 35 calendar days of the decision.