FT/EA/2024/0427 - [2025] UKFTT 01126 (GRC)

It was reasonable to accept the view of the Home Office that, whilst Operation Sommen was no longer a live operation and turnaround tactics were not being considered at the time of the request, it is not certain that such tactics or something like them might not be considered in future;

It was apparent from the Home Office’s initial response that the withheld information included information about the wider capabilities and operational procedures of Border Force. Disclosure of the withheld information would therefore be of assistance to organised criminals wishing to evade or undermine measures put in place to deter entry into the UK and, as such, the Commissioner was correct to conclude that there was a causal link between disclosure of the withheld information and prejudice to both the prevention or detection of crime and the operation of immigration controls;

The Commissioner was correct to conclude that the prejudice is real and of substance, that there is a real and significant risk of prejudice and that the harm relates to interests protected by the exemptions;

Whilst the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal did not set out why the public interest balance test was wrongly applied, the Commissioner considered that the public interest in favour of maintaining either exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure;

There is a very strong public interest in protecting the ability of public authorities to enforce the law and in protecting society from the impact of crime. There is also a strong public interest in not reducing the deterrent effect of the tactics contained in the withheld information. Disclosure would reveal information about Border Force capabilities and operational tactics more generally which could be used by individuals or criminal gangs to build up a picture of strengths and weaknesses, operational priorities and areas of risk;

The Commissioner was therefore correct to conclude that, on the facts of this case, the public interest factors in favour of disclosure did not equal or outweigh the public interest factors in maintaining the exemptions under sections 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(e) of FOIA.