[2023] UKUT 142 (AAC)

The IOPC replied to the request on 23 August 2021, stating that it was withholding the requested information under s.30(1)(a)(i) and s.40(2) of FOIA. Mr Williams requested an internal review, which the IOPC refused to provide in the absence of any grounds put forward by him. Mr Williams complained to the ICO on 24 August 2021. In his decision notice dated 16 August 2022 the ICO concluded that the IOPC was entitled to rely on s.30(1)(a)(i) to withhold the requested information. He required no steps to be taken. As summarised by the Tribunal in its decision

“16.

In relation to section 30(1) the Commissioner stated that he considered that information can be exempt if it relates to a specific ongoing, closed or abandoned investigation. The Commissioner set out his guidance on section 30 which states that section 30(1)(a)(i) can only be claimed by public authorities that have a duty to
investigate whether someone should be charged with an offence and that although the police are the most obvious users there may be other public authorities who
have a duty to investigate offences which may lead to a suspect being charged. The Commissioner was satisfied that the withheld information was held in relation to a
specific investigation conducted by the IOPC of the type described in section 30(1)(a)(i).

17.

In relation to the public interest balance, the Commissioner held that the purpose of section 30 is to ensure the effective investigation and prosecution of offences. It is not in the public interest to jeopardise the ability of the IOPC to investigate serious complaints and incidents involving police effectively. Set against this the
Commissioner recognised the importance of the public having confidence in publicauthorities which will be increased by allowing scrutiny of their performance and
may involve examining the decisions taken in particular cases. He acknowledged the public interest in promoting transparency, accountability and public understanding with regard to decisions made by public authorities. The
Commissioner was mindful of the sensitivity of the matter under consideration and recognised the IOPC’s commitment to publish information about this case, if
appropriate, in the future.

18.

The Commissioner acknowledged that the IOPC stated that despite the length of time that has passed since the death occurred this remains an open case. He took into consideration that at the time of the request further proceedings were being considered by the Coroner. He acknowledged that at the time of writing the
decision notice the Coroner had not set a date for the inquest.

19.

Taking all the above into account, the Commissioner concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.”

Mr Williams appealed to the Tribunal, but his appeal was dismissed.