Case No. UKUT-60-(AAC)

35. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal were enclosed with an application for permission to appeal and Notice of Appeal dated 20 March 2021 (form UT13). The Applicant was granted permission to appeal on two grounds, his first and third grounds of appeal:‘(1) The decision fails to recognise the weight of the public interest factors detailed in the original decision by the Information Commissioner requiring the CPS to disclose the requested information.…(3) Despite Judge Cragg QC’s comments detailed below, he ultimately failed to reach the correct public interest balance in s.42 FOIA and – in doing so – reinforced the perception that in terms of LLP it is, in all but name, an absolute exemption.’36. The Appellant submitted that the FTT erred at [48] of its decision in finding that the general in-built public interest in non-disclosure of the requested LPP opinion, pursuant to section 42 of the Act as interpreted by the case-law, outweighed the specific public interest factors supporting disclosure. 37. He submitted that the FTT, having rejected the additional specific factors relied upon by the Second Respondent (the CPS) in support of non-disclosure at [36]-[41] of its decision, placed disproportionate weight on or gave more than ‘significant weight’ to the in-built public interest in non-disclosure of LPP. He argued that the FTT started from a presumption of non-disclosure rather than disclosure.38. The Appellant submitted that the FTT failed to have sufficient regard to the specific factors in support of disclosure relied on by the First Respondent (Information Commissioner) in its decision notice and as addressed at [33], [42] - [46] of the FTT’s decision. He argued therefore that the FTT erred by almost entirely relying on the general principle in support of non-disclosure of LPP as the determinative factor and failing to give sufficient weight to the specific factors supporting the public interest in disclosure, particularly in light of finding an absence of specific factors supporting non-disclosure. 39. He submitted that the FTT erred at [42] of the decision (relying on [76] of Corderoy as support for the proposition) in finding that the constitutional importance of the requested LPP was neutral. He argued that it erred in finding that the age of the requested material was not a factor in support of disclosure at [46] when it is arguable that its ‘currency’ was not clearly defined.