JUSTICE v Information Commissioner

JUSTICE v Information Commissioner

The Tribunal found that the requested Prevent referral data was more granular than existing published data and that disclosure would be reasonably likely to prejudice national security by increasing the risk of identification of individuals, organisations, or vulnerabilities in Prevent operations. The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure, given the seriousness of the potential harm, even if the likelihood was low. The appeals were therefore dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: JUSTICE; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Information Rights Appeal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, National Security, Police Data, Public Interest Test, Equality Duty
Information Law Human Rights Administrative Law Freedom of Information National Security Police Data Public Interest Test Equality Duty

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JUSTICE

Appellant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Information Rights Appeal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 24(1) FOIA (national security exemption) applies to the requested Prevent referral data held by Merseyside Police and West Midlands Police
  2. 2 Whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption under section 24(1) FOIA
  3. 3 Whether the Information Commissioner correctly upheld the refusal to disclose the requested information

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the requested Prevent referral data was more granular than existing published data and that disclosure would be reasonably likely to prejudice national security by increasing the risk of identification of individuals, organisations, or vulnerabilities in Prevent operations. The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure, given the seriousness of the potential harm, even if the likelihood was low. The appeals were therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed