Select an area of expertise to find out more about our experience.
Find out more about our barristers and business support teams here.
Select an area of expertise to find out more about our experience.
Find out more about our barristers and business support teams here.
In Carroll v Information Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 833 (GRC) the FTT upheld the ICO’s view that the Home Office had been right to reject a FOIA request which sought information about where asylum seekers were housed by a contractor.
The Appellant had made a FOI request which asked, inter alia, whether asylum seekers were being housed in a local hotel. The Home Office refused the request, citing s.38(2) FOIA – that the information is likely to endanger the physical/mental health of any individual. That provision reads as follows:
38.— Health and safety.
(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to—
(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b) endanger the safety of any individual.
(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, have either of the effects mentioned in subsection (1).
The ICO & the FTT’s View
Following an unsuccessful internal review, the Appellant complained to the ICO. The ICO noted that the Home Office had provided evidence that “public speculation about asylum accommodation has led to the targeting of properties by individuals opposed to asylum seekers being housed there”, resulting in a real risk to the physical and mental health/safety of individuals living there. The Commissioner concluded that the public interest in accessing the information was less than the need to protect the individuals. The FTT agreed.
No Right to Financial Information re Contractor
The FOI request had also asked for information about the financial position of the contractor selected by the Home Office. The Home Office had refused to provide this information on the basis that it did not hold it. The ICO criticised the Home Office for failing to respond properly to this aspect of the FOI request, but upheld its overall approach. The ICO noted the comments made by the Information Tribunal in Johnson/ MoJ (EA2006/0085), namely that FOIA does not extend to what information a public authority should be collecting but rather what information it actually holds.
The FTT upheld that approach. It agreed with the ICO’s view that the Home Office had provided a cogent explanation for why the information was not held.
A monthly data protection bulletin from the barristers at 5 Essex Chambers
The Data Brief is edited by Francesca Whitelaw KC, Aaron Moss and John Goss, barristers at 5 Essex Chambers, with contributions from the whole information law, data protection and AI Team.
