Author: Anya Proops KC

Disclosing Court Records under FOIA

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

The Tribunal has recently handed down a decision in which it reached a number of important conclusions on the application of s. 32 FOIA (the courts records exemption) – Dominic Kennedy v IC & Charity Commissioners (EA/2008/0083). The appeal was concerned with a request which had been made to the Charity Commissioners for disclosure of information as to its inquiry into ‘the Mariam Appeal’. The appeal had been set up by George Galloway MP and its purposes were stated to include providing medical support to the Iraqi people. The Charity Commissioners refused disclosure of the requested information on the basis that it amounted to a court record and, hence, was absolutely exempt from disclosure under s. 32 FOIA.

 

The first issue which the Tribunal was called upon to determine was whether the word ‘document’ as it appears in s. 32 included electronic documents or merely hard copy documents. This was an issue in the appeal because, in contrast with all other exemptions, s. 32 focuses on information contained in ‘documents’. The Tribunal decided that the word ‘documents’ as it appears in s. 32 should be given an expansive interpretation so as to include both electronic documents and hard copy documents, not least because this is the result which Parliament must plainly have intended in enacting s. 32 (paras. 58-60). The Tribunal also held that s. 32 can apply, not merely to records relating to on-going inquiries, but also to inquiries that are closed (paras. 86-92).

 

In the course of its decision, the Tribunal accepted that it was giving s. 32 ‘a very wide scope’, which contrasted with the approach taken by the Tribunals to other exemptions in FOIA. However, it concluded that this was the required result given the need to respect the autonomy of the courts and those bodies which conduct statutory inquiries and arbitrations (para. 92).

 

The Tribunal went on to find that the general implications of its findings were that

 

a) If after a court decision or an inquiry closes then anyone can ask for the leave of the court or person conducting the inquiry for documents and the judge or authority can consider this but outside the realms of FOIA. Courts have rules for this and government inquiries also envisage similar rules. Therefore we would recommend that the Charity Commission considers adopting such rules; and

 

b) If documents are provided by other public authorities then a person can always make an FOIA request to them and they would not be able to rely on s.32(2)’ (para. 95)

 

The approach adopted by the Tribunal was consistent with the approach adopted in the earlier case of Szucs v Information Commissioner (EA/2007/0075). 11KBW’s Clive Sheldon appeared on behalf of the Commissioner in Kennedy.

Disclosing Disciplinary Records Under FOIA

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

The Information Tribunal has recently handed down a decision in which it upheld the Commissioner’s conclusion that information as to judges’ serious misconduct was exempt from disclosure under the personal data exemption provided for under s. 40(2)(c) FOIA – Guardian Newspapers v IC (EA/2008/0084). The decision is interesting not least because it highlights the Tribunal’s continuing reluctance to treat personal data concerning disciplinary matters as being disclosable under FOIA (see further on this point the earlier cases of Waugh v IC & Doncaster College (EA/2007/0060) and Roger Salmon v IC & King’s College (EA/2007/0135)). Notably, the Tribunal also held that the information in question was exempt under s. 31(1)(c) FOIA (administration of justice exemption).

The central issue in the appeal was whether disclosure of the information would contravene the first data protection principle (DPP1) contained in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and, hence, render the information absolutely exempt from disclosure under s. 40(2)(c) FOIA. The Tribunal held that DPP1 would be contravened. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal took into account in particular the facts that:

·         the DPA contained an exclusion which prevented judicial office holders themselves gaining access to data which revealed assessments of their ‘suitability to hold judicial office’ and it would be an odd result if third parties could access such data under FOIA but the data subjects themselves could not (para. 91);

 

·         some of the information would amount to sensitive personal data which would require that one of the stringent conditions contained in Schedule 3 be met in order for the disclosure to be in accordance with DPP1 (para. 92);

 

·         some information was already in the public domain as to the fact and scope of reprimands  or serious actions (para. 93);

 

·         the judges themselves would have a reasonable expectation that their disciplinary record would be kept confidential (para. 96);

 

·         there would a risk that judges would suffer great distress if the information were to be disclosed and, further, that their future authority and their future employment prospects would be jeopardised (para. 97).

 

In addition the Tribunal held that s. 31(1)(c) FOIA was engaged in respect of the information and that the public interest weighed in favour of maintaining that exemption. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal took into account in particular the fact that, in its view, disclosure of the information would undermine a judge’s authority while carrying out his or her judicial function and would otherwise disrupt the judicial process by encouraging legal representatives to seek adjournments by reason of alleged concerns about the judge’s good standing (para. 106). 11KBW’s Karen Steyn appeared on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.

The End of the Control Orders Regime?

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

The House of Lords has today handed down an important judgment on the rights of individuals who are subject to control orders (“controlees”) to access information which has been relied upon by the Home Office as justifying the imposition of the orders – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF & Ors [2009] UKHL 28. The judgment was concerned, in particular, with whether the process by which the courts supervise the application of control orders under section 3(10) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was compliant with the controlee’s rights under Article 5(4) (right to take proceedings to determine lawfulness of detention) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial). That judicial supervision process had historically operated so as to a create a situation where the Secretary of State could put before the court information relating to the imposition of the control order but the controlee would not himself be able to access that information. The justification for operating the process in this way was that there would be cases where disclosing the particular information to the controlee would itself be contrary to the public interest, particularly by reason of the risks to national security posed by the disclosure.

 

The House of Lords has now held that denying the controlee access to information which is relied upon by the Secretary of State in the context of the section 3(10) process is incompatible with the controlee’s rights under Article 5(4) and 6. In reaching this conclusion, the House of Lords clearly considered themselves to be bound by a recent judgment of the ECtHR in A and Others v United Kingdom (Application No 3455/05 – cf. the earlier judgment of the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB and AF [2007] UKHL 46; [2008] AC 440 which was decided before the A case). The result of their Lordship’s judgment is that section 3(10) must now be read down so as to produce a result whereby controlees are entitled to access information relied upon by the Secretary of State in the course of the judicial process. In light of the judgment, there must be serious questions as to whether the control orders regime can continue to operate, at least in its existing form. 11KBW’s Cecilia Ivimy appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Office. Michael Supperstone QC appeared as a Special Advocate.

High Court Judgment on Inspection of Personal Data

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

The High Court has recently handed down an interesting judgment on the extent to which redacted personal data contained in documents disclosed in the course of litigation was vulnerable to inspection. The judgment also highlights some of the limits which may be placed on parties seeking inspection of databases containing personal data. In Webster & Ors v Ridgeway Foundation School Governors [2009] EWHC 1140 (QB), the claimants had brought claims against the governors of a school on the basis that they had suffered racially motivated assaults on school property. They alleged that the governors had caused or contributed to the injury by negligently failing to maintain proper disciplinary standards or otherwise taking proper care with respect to pupil security, particularly by allowing racial tensions to develop. During the course of standard disclosure, the governors disclosed a log of investigations into racist incidents, bullying and aggression in the school. Moreover, one of their witness statements disclosed the existence of a computerized system used to record pupil behaviour. The governors allowed inspection of the disclosed documents but redacted the names of purported victims of racism, bullying and aggression. The claimants sought disclosure of the redacted names and, further, of the computerized system. They argued that they needed to access this information in order to assess whether there were other pupils who might be able to provide useful evidence and that they had a right to inspect that information given that its existence had been disclosed by the governors.

Nicol J refused the claimants’ application for inspection of the redacted information and the computerized system. He held that that the mere fact that a document had been disclosed did not mean that there was an automatic right of inspection in respect of all of the information it contained, not least this was because some of the information in the disclosed document may not be relevant to the matters in issue. On the facts of the instant case, Nicol J found that inspection of the redacted names could and should be refused on the basis that: (a) it would amount to an interference with the privacy rights of the individual children named in the documents; and (b) that interference was not necessary in the instant case as the claimants did not need to know the identities of the purported victims in order to have a fair trial or for the fair disposal of the litigation (Science Research Council v Nasse [1980] AC 1028 HL applied). With respect to the computerized system, Nicol J accepted that mention of a document in a witness statement could be equated with inclusion of a document in a disclosure list and, hence, prima facie it would give rise to an obligation to permit inspection. However, he also held that that general proposition was subject to the qualifications contained in CPR 31.3, which included the right to object to disclosure on grounds of proportionality. Nicol J went on to find that permitting inspection of the computerized database would be disproportionate, particularly because: (a) the governors would have to redact the entire database to ensure that any private information relating to individual pupils and, further, any irrelevant information was not disclosed, which was a very substantial task and (b) undertaking this task was disproportionate having regard to any possible benefit for the claimants and the issues in the case. 

NHS SPINE – PERMISSION TO DELETE CARE RECORDS

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

The creation of electronic summary patient records which can readily be accessed by medical teams on the NHS broadband computer system, known as the Spine, is one which has met with approval in many quarters. This is unsurprising given the potential health benefits resulting from clinicians being able to access such records. However, this approval has been tempered by concerns that the NHS, in common with other large-scale public authorities, may not be able to maintain appropriate levels of security with respect to this manifestly sensitive personal data. Yesterday the Guardian reported that, following talks between the ICO and Connecting for Health (CfH), the agency responsible for implementing the records scheme, CfH has now yielded to calls for NHS patients be given the right to have their summary care records deleted from the system (although deletion would not occur if the records had already been used, in which case they would be archived for medic-legal reasons). The right to have records deleted will be additional to the right already granted to patients to opt out of the scheme before a record is created for them. CfH’s decision to permit patients to have their record deleted represents a move away from earlier proposals that, where objections were made, the record would simply be ‘masked’ within the system. Notably, the news over changes to the care records scheme comes only days after it was revealed that records revealing personal data relating to tens of thousands of MOD personnel, which were lost last year, had contained not merely financial information but also highly sensitive vetting information. The revelations have been controversial because, whilst the loss was announced last year, neither Parliament nor the ICO were informed that the lost data included sensitive vetting data.

ABORTION STATISTICS AND PERSONAL DATA

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

The Information Tribunal will this week begin hearing an important appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner that certain abortion statistics relating to ground (e) abortions (abortions in cases of disability) were disclosable under section 1 FOIA. The appeal concerns in particular the interesting and difficult question of whether and to what extent ostensibly anonymous, statistical information can nonetheless constitute ‘personal data’ for the purposes of the personal data exemption provided for under section 40 FOIA. Before the Commissioner, the DH argued that, whilst the information in the abortion statistics does not per se identify any particular individual, because the statistics themselves relate to a relatively small number of cases, it would still be possible to identify particular patients and/or doctors who have carried out the abortions, particularly if the statistics were married either with other information held by the DH or already in the public domain. The Commissioner was not persuaded by that argument. He held that the statistical information was so far removed from the information on the Abortion Notification forms from which the information was derived that it no longer retained the attributes of personal data. The proposition that proximity to identifying information should be the barometer of whether particular anonymous information constitutes ‘personal data’ is likely to be hotly contested before the Tribunal. Watch this space for further news! Tim Pitt-Payne will be appearing on behalf of the Commissioner.