Rosemary Smith v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Rosemary Smith v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that section 35(1)(a) FOIA was properly engaged as the withheld information related to the formulation or development of government policy that was still under active consideration at the date of the request. The Tribunal also found that the qualified person’s opinion under section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA was reasonable and thus the exemption was engaged. In both cases, the Tribunal concluded that the public interest in maintaining the safe space for policy formulation and free and frank deliberation just outweighed the public interest in disclosure, given the minimal amount of information withheld and the significant disclosures already made. The Tribunal found HM Treasury’s...

Parties
Appellant: Rosemary Smith; 1st Respondent: The Information Commissioner; 2nd Respondent: HM Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2024
Procedural Posture
FOIA Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Substantive Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Government Policy Exemptions, Public Interest Test, Section 35 FOIA, Section 36 FOIA, Section 40 FOIA, Section 10 FOIA
Information Law Administrative Law Freedom of Information Government Policy Exemptions Public Interest Test Section 35 FOIA Section 36 FOIA Section 40 FOIA +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosemary Smith

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

1st Respondent

HM Treasury

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOIA Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Substantive Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HM Treasury properly relied on section 35(1)(a) FOIA to withhold information relating to government policy formulation or development
  2. 2 Whether HM Treasury properly relied on section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA to withhold information on the basis of prejudice to the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation
  3. 3 Whether the public interest test under sections 35 and 36 FOIA favoured disclosure or withholding of the information

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that section 35(1)(a) FOIA was properly engaged as the withheld information related to the formulation or development of government policy that was still under active consideration at the date of the request. The Tribunal also found that the qualified person’s opinion under section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA was reasonable and thus the exemption was engaged. In both cases, the Tribunal concluded that the public interest in maintaining the safe space for policy formulation and free and frank deliberation just outweighed the public interest in disclosure, given the minimal amount of information withheld and the significant disclosures already made. The Tribunal found HM Treasury’s...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed in relation to information contained in the further additional material disclosed to the Appellant since the appeal was adjourned on 16 November 2023.
  • The remainder of the withheld information in the Closed Bundle is exempt for the reasons given.