The hearing
7.On 12 January 2022, I held an oral hearing of the Appellant ’s appeal using the online video platform, CVP. The parties had consented to this form of hearing and I was satisfied that it was in accordance with the overriding objective, just and fair, to proceed in this manner. The parties were able to participate fully in the hearing and make oral submissions in addition to the written arguments they had previously lodged. 8.The Appellant appeared in person. The Second Respondent, the Crown Prosecution Service, was represented by Mr Adam Heppinstall QC. The First Respondent, the Commissioner, did not participate in the hearing or proceedings but had not been required to do so. She filed no written submissions in respect of the appeal. 9.I am grateful to both Mr Heppinstall QC and the Appellant for the quality of their written arguments and the skill with which they made their oral submissions.
- DECISION
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to dismiss the appeal.
- Introduction
- The hearing
- The Request for information
- The Information Commissioner’s Decision
- ‘Balance of the public interest arguments
- Conclusion
- The FTT Decision
- The Law
- The Appellant’s submissions
- The Second Respondent’s submissions
- Discussion and analysis – section 42 FOIA and the public interest balancing exercise
- Judge of the Upper Tribunal