Dudgeon v Information Commissioner & Anor

Dudgeon v Information Commissioner & Anor

The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal was entitled in law to exclude both the appellant and his counsel from the closed session without appointing a special advocate, and that the national security exemptions under sections 23 and 24 FOIA were properly engaged and not applied too broadly, as the requested information was not so remote from security bodies as to fall outside the exemptions.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Jeffrey Dudgeon; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Chief Constable, Police Service of Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal Decision on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Closed Material Procedure, National Security Exemptions, Precedent and Jurisdiction
Administrative Law Information Law National Security Law Freedom of Information Closed Material Procedure National Security Exemptions Precedent and Jurisdiction

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Jeffrey Dudgeon

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Chief Constable, Police Service of Northern Ireland

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Upper Tribunal Decision on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by excluding the appellant and his counsel from the closed session and by not appointing a special advocate
  2. 2 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by applying national security exemptions (sections 23 and 24 FOIA) too broadly to refuse disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal was entitled in law to exclude both the appellant and his counsel from the closed session without appointing a special advocate, and that the national security exemptions under sections 23 and 24 FOIA were properly engaged and not applied too broadly, as the requested information was not so remote from security bodies as to fall outside the exemptions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed on both grounds.