First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

EA/2023/0538 - [2024] UKFTT 001054 (GRC)

Fecha: 19-Jun-2024

The appeal

The appeal

The grounds of appeal

13.

The Appellant’s grounds of appeal were based on his arguments that:

the Commissioner erred in concluding that the exemptions in the Relevant Sections were engaged;

the Commissioner erred in concluding (in respect of the Public Interest Test) that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemptions.

14.

In respect of the first of those grounds, the Appellant argued (in summary) that:

the Commissioner was wrong to conclude that any prejudice relied on by the SFO was “real, actual or of substance”- in particular, because:

•

the Commissioner wrongly overstated the ‘precedent effect’ of disclosing the information in this case;

•

accordingly, there was no necessary causal relationship between the disclosure of the information requested and the prejudice covered in the Relevant Sections;

•

the Commissioner was wrong simply to accept the SFO’s “wholly unsubstantiated” assertion as to the effect of disclosure on informing and influencing the behaviour of criminals, defendants and suspects;

•

the Commissioner was wrong to accept the SFO’s argument that the requested information “would provide detail, on how an investigation is progressing”;

even if the nature of the prejudice was accepted, the Commissioner was wrong to find that the prejudice “would be likely” to occur - this was because the ‘precedent-effect’ was unduly overstated;

even if the SFO would find it difficult to refuse future requests, it was fanciful to suggest that the prospect of the Requested Information, if disclosed, would influence the top level of serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption;

the likelihood of the occurrence of the prejudice covered by the Relevant Sections was merely a hypothetical or remote possibility, not a real and significant risk.

15.

In respect of the second of those grounds, the Appellant argued (in summary) that:

whilst the Commissioner correctly accepted that publicly available information on the SFO’s overall budget and annual priorities did not address the specific public interest in understanding the level of wasted taxpayer money, he failed to give sufficient weight to the specific public interest in disclosure, given the need to promote transparency and accountability in relation to the specific circumstances of the case (including the significant failings of the SFO in the Unaoil case);

the Commissioner was wrong to accept the SFO’s argument, without evidence, that disclosure would prejudice the Unaoil case;

the Commissioner did not give due weight to the fact that the Unaoil case is closed and gave undue weight to the hypothetical possibility that it could be reopened.