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

We start by addressing the terms of the Request itself.

The witness stated, in their written statement, that the Requested Information did not only extend to the costs of the Unaoil case but also the costs broken down by year covering investigation costs, trial costs, and appeal costs and other payments including the SFO’s own costs. We find that the witness, in referring to the Unaoil ‘case’, was referring to the SFO’s investigation into Unaoil and associated individuals, including the subsequent court proceedings (and our references below to the ‘Unaoil case’ should be taken to mean this). We agree with that assessment of the Request by the witness, subject to one caveat - which is to clarify the basis on which the breakdown of costs was requested. We find that the Request sought the following information: (a) the total aggregate cost of the entire Unaoil case; (b) that cost broken down by reference to: (i) the costs per year; (ii) costs relating to the investigation, trial and appeal; and (iii) the SFO’s own costs, including payments made to others.

The witness, however, went on to state in their written statement that they considered that the cost breakdown requested would entail providing details of “staffing costs breakdowns from across operational divisions (including the intelligence division), equipment and technology, evidence storage, data management, operational expenses, training, and legal expenses”. We do not agree with that assessment of the Requested Information; nowhere in the Request does it require those details as stated by the witness. It is clear from the wording of the Request that it sought only the information (and the breakdown of the information) which we specified in the preceding paragraph. We therefore find that the witness was wrong to categorise such details as needing to be disclosed in response to the Request. Consequently, we agree with the submissions of Ms Al-Yassin that the Request was mischaracterised by the witness in that regard.

Other views of the SFO were also predicated on this mischaracterisation of the Request. For example, the witness considered that disclosure of the Requested Information, on its own (i.e. disregarding the ‘mosaic effect’, which we address below), could assist individuals to determine how much funding is placed on the intelligence stage of a case (which the witness stated was the stage of a case where the most sensitive and usually covert law enforcement techniques are utilised). However, for the same reasons as we have given above, we find that the Requested Information did not extend to requiring details of costs relating to the intelligence stage of the Unaoil case, nor to any other specific stages or aspects of the Unaoil case. The only distinction which the Request made regarding the information sought, apart from figures per annum, was between (on the one hand) the aggregate costs relating to the investigation, trial and appeal and (on the other hand) the SFO’s own costs, including payments made to others.