Kadhim Shubber v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Kadhim Shubber v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that the SFO and Commissioner failed to establish that disclosure of the requested information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the interests protected by sections 31(1)(a), (b), or (c) of FOIA. The SFO's arguments relied on a misconceived 'precedent effect' and mischaracterised the request; there was no evidential basis for real or significant prejudice, and the withheld information was generic. Therefore, the exemptions were not engaged and the appeal was allowed.

Parties
Appellant: Kadhim Shubber; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The Serious Fraud Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Law Enforcement Exemptions, Public Interest Test
Information Rights Administrative Law Freedom of Information Law Enforcement Exemptions Public Interest Test

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kadhim Shubber

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The Serious Fraud Office

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exemptions under sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(b), and 31(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 were engaged in respect of the requested information
  2. 2 Whether the public interest test favoured maintaining the exemptions or disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the SFO and Commissioner failed to establish that disclosure of the requested information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the interests protected by sections 31(1)(a), (b), or (c) of FOIA. The SFO's arguments relied on a misconceived 'precedent effect' and mischaracterised the request; there was no evidential basis for real or significant prejudice, and the withheld information was generic. Therefore, the exemptions were not engaged and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Serious Fraud Office shall disclose the information it holds relating to the request for information made by Kadhim Shubber dated 29 June 2023.
  • The Serious Fraud Office must disclose such information within 20 working days of the promulgation of this decision, or within 14 working days after being notified of an unsuccessful outcome to any application to appeal or resulting appeal.