Martha Wardrop v Information Commissioner & Anor

Martha Wardrop v Information Commissioner & Anor

Confirmation or denial of whether the Metropolitan Police Service holds disciplinary records about a named former officer would constitute disclosure of third-party personal data. Although there are legitimate interests in disclosure, these are overridden by the individual's strong privacy expectations, the age of the information, and the likelihood of distress or damage. Therefore, confirmation or denial would contravene the data protection principles, and the refusal under section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA was lawful.

Parties
Appellant: Martha Wardrop; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The Metropolitan Police Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Personal Data, Neither Confirm Nor Deny, Legitimate Interest Test, Police Misconduct Records
Information Law Data Protection Freedom of Information Personal Data Neither Confirm Nor Deny Legitimate Interest Test Police Misconduct Records

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martha Wardrop

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

The Metropolitan Police Service

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether confirmation or denial of holding disciplinary records would disclose third-party personal data
  2. 2 Whether such confirmation or denial would contravene data protection principles under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR
  3. 3 Whether legitimate interests in disclosure are overridden by the data subject's rights

Ratio Decidendi

Confirmation or denial of whether the Metropolitan Police Service holds disciplinary records about a named former officer would constitute disclosure of third-party personal data. Although there are legitimate interests in disclosure, these are overridden by the individual's strong privacy expectations, the age of the information, and the likelihood of distress or damage. Therefore, confirmation or denial would contravene the data protection principles, and the refusal under section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA was lawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed