Stefania Maurizi v Information Commissioner & Anor.

Stefania Maurizi v Information Commissioner & Anor.

The Tribunal held that the ICO's decision regarding the final part of the appellant's request (concerning deletion of a CPS lawyer's emails) was not in accordance with the law because the CPS failed to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, as required by section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Tribunal found...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Stefania Maurizi; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
FOIA Appeal (uk First Tier Tribunal, Information Rights) / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part (only as to the final part of the request); otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
FOIA Exemptions, Public Interest Test, Extradition Proceedings, Legal Professional Privilege, Records Management, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Freedom of Information Administrative Law FOIA Exemptions Public Interest Test Extradition Proceedings Legal Professional Privilege Records Management Jurisdiction of Tribunal

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stefania Maurizi

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Crown Prosecution Service

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOIA Appeal (uk First Tier Tribunal, Information Rights) / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CPS lawfully refused disclosure under FOIA for various categories of correspondence relating to Julian Assange
  2. 2 Whether the ICO's decision was in accordance with the law regarding the final part of the request (deletion of CPS lawyer's emails)
  3. 3 Whether the CPS could rely on section 14 (vexatious requests) at a late stage

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the ICO's decision regarding the final part of the appellant's request (concerning deletion of a CPS lawyer's emails) was not in accordance with the law because the CPS failed to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, as required by section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Tribunal found that the CPS could not rely on section 14 (vexatious requests) at such a late stage. For the other parts of the request, the Tribunal found that the exemptions under section 30(1)(c), 30(3), and 42(1) were properly engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighed the interest in disclosure, given the importance of maintaining trust and confidence in...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part (only as to the final part of the request); otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • The Crown Prosecution Service must, by no later than 4pm on 23 June 2023, state if it held the information requested by the appellant in the final part of her request for information dated 12 December 2019 and, if it did hold it, either supply the information to the appellant by 4pm on 23 June 2023 or serve a...