Robin Callender Smith v The Information Commissioner & Anor
The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law in its application of the public interest balancing exercise under section 42 FOIA; it was entitled to find that the inherent weight in favour of non-disclosure of legal professional privilege outweighed the specific public interest factors supporting disclosure.
- Parties
- Appellant: Robin Callender Smith; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: The Crown Prosecution Service
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 January 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Upper Tribunal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Freedom of Information Act, Legal Professional Privilege, Public Interest Test, Disclosure of Legal Advice
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robin Callender Smith
Appellant
The Information Commissioner
First Respondent
The Crown Prosecution Service
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Upper Tribunal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in striking the balance of competing public interests under section 42 FOIA
- 2 Whether sufficient weight was given to public interest factors favouring disclosure
Ratio Decidendi
The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law in its application of the public interest balancing exercise under section 42 FOIA; it was entitled to find that the inherent weight in favour of non-disclosure of legal professional privilege outweighed the specific public interest factors supporting disclosure.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 21 October 2020 under number EA/2019/0275 is confirmed.
- The requested information should not be disclosed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment