FT/EA/2025/0159 - [2025] UKFTT 01125 (GRC)

This is an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) dated 13 March 2025, reference IC-336387-V0P9 (the “Decision Notice”).

A hearing took place via CVP on Friday 19 September 2025. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. There were no interruptions of note during the hearing. The Appellant represented himself. The first Respondent did not attend. The Second Respondent was represented by Mr Andrew Deakin, counsel. Mr Stewart MacLeod, Deputy Director of Knowledge and Information Management Services, gave evidence on behalf of the Second Respondent.

The appeal relates to the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). It concerns information held by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (“the FCDO”), who have been joined as the Second Respondent.

The request centres on a single document (“the Manual”). The Manual was created to advise FCDO sensitivity reviewers in handling sensitive content. The drafting of the Manual involved the engagement of multiple stakeholders, including FCDO Internal Departments, the Ministry of Defence, the Royal Household, Cabinet Office, and government agencies.

The Appellant made the request which is the subject of this appeal on 19 August 2024 in writing as follows:

“I am making a request to see the guidance manual issued to sensitivity reviewers minus items covered by s37”.

The FCDO responded in writing on 09 September 2024. The FCDO confirmed that they held information within the scope of the request but relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request, specifically on the basis that the request imposed an unreasonable burden on them. The FCDO’s response stated:

“In this case, the scope of your request encompasses a substantial volume of information. Complying with your request would require an extensive review of the material, including consulting with third parties, considering the applicability of various exemptions, and making any necessary redactions. The time and effort required to undertake these tasks would impose a significant and disproportionate burden on our resources.

…..

In this instance, the sheer volume of information and the complexity of the review process would result in an excessive strain on our resources, diverting attention from other essential functions and responsibilities.

Furthermore, the ICO advises that when assessing whether a request is vexatious, public authorities should consider the context and history of the request, the burden it would impose, and the value and purpose of the request. While we acknowledge the importance of transparency and accountability, we must also balance this against the need to use our resources effectively and efficiently.

Given these considerations, we have determined that complying with your request would be excessively burdensome and would significantly disrupt our operations”.

The Appellant made a request for an internal review of the decision on 09 September 2024, stating that “there is a public interest argument”.

The Appellant repeated this request for a review of the decision on 29 September 2024, stating:

“Presumably the guidance manual is available to sensitivity reviewers in a concise form or otherwise they would not be able to carry out their job? If it is not then would the FCDO explain exactly what form the guidance takes, why my request ‘encompasses a substantial volume of information’ and how complying with the request ‘would require an extensive review of the material’ and ‘cause a disproportionate level of disruption, irritation or distress’. There is a strong public interest in understanding the basis on which exemptions are applied to prevent the release of information”.

The FCDO responded to the request for an internal review on 01 October 2024. The review upheld the initial decision that complying with the request would be excessively burdensome and would significantly disrupt the FCDO’s operations and therefore should be refused under section 14 of FOIA.

The Appellant lodged a complaint with the Commissioner on 04 October 2024. He stated that:

“My argument is that it cannot be difficult to supply the guidance manual which presumably has to be provided to sensitivity reviewers to do their job. I do not believe 14(1) applies. There is a strong public interest in understanding the basis on which our history is censored. None of the questions I posed in my review request were answered”.

The complaint was accepted by the Commissioner on 09 October 2024. On 22 January 2025 the Commissioner wrote to the FCDO, asking them to provide details of the detrimental impact of complying with the request, why the impact would be unjustified or disproportionate in relation to the request itself and its inherent purpose or value and, if relevant, details of any wider context and history to the request.

The FCDO responded on 03 February 2025. In addition to the information that had previously been provided in the initial response and review response, the FCDO stated:

“Complying with the request would be detrimental to our ability to meet our legal obligations under the Freedom of Information Act & Public Records Act programme. Significant resources would be required to engage with a wide range of stakeholders, and the release of the requested information could prejudice a wide range of issues, including national security and international relations.

…..

Additionally, the likely percentage of the document that is releasable is minimal due to the nature of the content. To allow the ICO to understand the sheer volume of information this request encompasses this document more than 100 separate sections of guidance on material dating from 1704 to the present day”.

The FCDO also noted that, since August 2023, they had handled seven requests/complaints from the Appellant in relation to their internal guidance. They maintained that, in their view, the request served “no easily discernible benefit to the public”.

The FCDO provided additional information to the Commissioner on 09 February 2025. They stressed that it was the sheer volume of information being sought which, in their view, far exceeded what would be considered reasonable to process. They stated that the requests “have been persistent and repetitive, focusing on the same subject matter – guidance issued to sensitivity reviewers. The requester has continued to submit follow-up requests and internal review requests, demonstrating a pattern of behaviour that we believe can be considered vexatious……Despite being informed that certain information is exempt under Sections 37, 40, and 41 of the FOIA, the requester has persisted in making requests for the same information. This unreasonable persistence further supports the argument that the requests are vexatious”.

On 15 February 2025 the Appellant wrote to the Commissioner’s case handler and stated “If the MOD can provide their Review Guide (albeit redacted) so can the FCDO”. He included a copy of a request that he had made to the MoD (Ministry of Defence) on 25 November 2024 asking for the guidance used by MoD officers who “review records for release under PRA” and the response received from the MoD on 13 February 2025 in which they provided the Appellant with a redacted copy of their ‘Blue Guide Review Section’ (also known as the ‘Ministry of Defence Manual for Sensitivity Reviewers’).

On the same date, a phone call took place between the FCDO and the Commissioner’s case handler. The FCDO confirmed that they received around fifty requests from the Appellant per year, albeit not all in relation to the Manual. The FCDO stated that, unlike the MoD’s sensitivity guide which is pre-prepared for release, the FCDO Manual is not pre-prepared for release. By way of an estimate of the time that would be involved in preparing it for release, the FCDO stated that the last update of the Manual had taken six months to complete. The FCDO stated that, whilst they had considered the application of section 12, they had concluded that a refusal under section 14 of FOIA was more appropriate as the grossly oppressive burden would come from the need for extensive third-party consultation and heavy redaction.

In a follow-up email on 19 February 2025, the FCDO stated that:

“The sheer volume and complexity of the information requested is overwhelming.

…..

As the FCDO is the lead department for international relations, this guidance covers our relations with hundreds of countries and international organisations. Many of these entities would need to be consulted if we were to consider releasing this material. Additionally, multiple government departments would also need to be consulted due to our Embassies and Consulates being hubs of one HMG overseas.

Having checked with the Head of the sensitivity review service when this guidance was last updated, it took a sensitivity reviewer six to nine months for all sections to be completed due to the extensive cross-departmental consultation required to ensure the guidance was current”.

Additional information was provided by the FCDO on 04 March 2025, in which they stated that the Manual contained 178 pages and approximately 45,000 words. Each section was approximately two pages in length, although it was dependent on the topic. It was anticipated that, in order to redact the guide, at least the exemptions pursuant to sections 23, 24, 26-28, 31, 36-38, and 40-43 would be triggered.

The Commissioner decided that the FCDO were entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request, and did not require further steps to be taken.

In summary, the reasons for the Commissioner’s decision were: