Paul Hopkins v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Paul Hopkins v The Information Commissioner & Anor

On the balance of probabilities, further information exists within Staffordshire Police's systems, but the searches conducted have been extensive and largely unavailing. The statutory framework of the FOIA does not justify further searching, and the tribunal does not require the Second Respondent to take any further...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Paul Hopkins; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Police Record Keeping, Public Authority Duties
Information Law Administrative Law Freedom of Information Police Record Keeping Public Authority Duties

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Hopkins

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Staffordshire Police holds information relating to the terms of reference and changes thereof for Operation Eustace
  2. 2 Adequacy of searches conducted by Staffordshire Police
  3. 3 Application of record keeping duties under CPIA 1996

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, further information exists within Staffordshire Police's systems, but the searches conducted have been extensive and largely unavailing. The statutory framework of the FOIA does not justify further searching, and the tribunal does not require the Second Respondent to take any further steps.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Further searches conducted during the hearing disclosed additional information falling within part 3 of the request.
  • No further steps required of the Second Respondent.