[2024] UKUT 275 (AAC)

Mr Harron has for several years been, in his eyes at least, seeking to hold Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“Rotherham”) to account for the way it has handled child sexual exploitation in its area in the wake of the 2014 Jay Report (also known as the “Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation). That report had estimated that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013.

Mr Harron is the co-author of a booklet titled “Voices of Despair, Voices of Hope”, which is a collection of child sexual exploitation survivors’ stories. In 2016 Rotherham reversed a decision it had previously made to distribute 1,500 copies of this booklet which it had purchased. Rotherham said it had reversed its previous decision because it considered the booklet was not suitable for use either for staff or residents as it “did not form part of the National Working Group best practice advice”. Mr Harron has since then made a number of freedom of information requests to Rotherham about this reversal decision.

The request of 23 March 2021 with which this appeal is concerned is one such request. It asked Rotherham for two pieces of information:

“A copy of all communications that led to and followed on from the comments made in red and added to the email I sent on 26.10.15 at 10.24am.

It is also essential that the identify of any person Jean Imray contacted (Rape Crisis is mentioned) is identified as part of this request.”

Jean Imray is a senior social worker and at the material time was the Interim Deputy Strategic Director of Children’s and Young People’s Services at Rotherham. Ms Imray had carried out an independent investigation following the Jay report. She was also involved in Rotherham’s decision not to distribute copies of “Voices of Despair, Voices of Hope”. It was Ms Imray’s view, having read the booklet, that it was unsuitable for widespread distribution by Rotherham. However, she also wished to seek a second opinion on the subject, which she did. To this end, Ms Imray had contacted a practitioner who had over 30 years of experience in counselling persons affected by sexual violence and in managing and advising organisations in this field. In this decision I will refer to the person who Ms Imray contacted about the booklet either as “the practitioner” or, as the FTT did, “the expert”. The practitioner was sent a copy of “Voices of Despair, Voices of Hope” and asked to comment on it, which they did. However, the practitioner had only agreed to provide their views on the booklet on the basis that their identity and the identity of the organisations for which they had worked was not disclosed.

Rotherham refused Mr Harron’s request of 23 March 2021. It did so in short because it said that (i) it held no further information under the first part of the request; and (ii) the identity of the practitioner who had given their views to Ms Imray on “Voices of Despair, Voices of Hope” would not be disclosed because section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) applied to that information and exempted it from disclosure.

Mr Harron was dissatisfied with this outcome and complained to the Information Commissioner under section 50(1) of FOIA. In a Decision Notice of 8 September 2022, the Information Commissioner found that Rotherham had acted in accordance with Part I of FOIA in refusing to provide Mr Harron with the requested information. As to the first part of the request, the Information Commissioner decided that on the balance of probabilities Rotherham did not hold any further information which was relevant to the first part of the request. As for the second part of the request, the Information Commissioner concluded (i) that the practitioner’s identity was personal data; (ii) there was insufficient legitimate interest to outweigh the practitioner’s fundamental rights and interests; and, accordingly (iii) disclosure of the information would not be lawful.

Mr Harron appealed against the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice and it was that appeal which was struck out on the basis that the FTT did not have jurisdiction in relation to the appeal.