Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 71 (AAC)

Fecha: 11-Ene-2024

Grounds of appeal

Grounds of appeal

31.

The FTT granted permission to appeal. PLP’s grounds of appeal were:

the FTT decision’s conclusions on the engagement of the exemption in s31 were flawed:

the FTT decision’s conclusion that the exemption was engaged was reached without any sufficient evidential basis, and on the basis of materially deficient reasoning. There is no analysis in the FTT decision of the core of PLP’s case: namely its submission that the ’gaming’ concern was not properly made; and the longest single paragraph in the FTT decision ([56]) is (with respect) incoherent;

ii.

the FTT decision’s alternative basis for that conclusion was reached on the basis of an erroneous decision to defer to HO on the question of prejudice, contrary to binding authority;

the FTT decision’s conclusions on the public interest were flawed; the FTT erred in

incorrectly analysing HO’s approach to disclosing the triage process criteria, reaching a conclusion without evidential basis;

ii.

failing to consider (or address) the implications which followed from the FTT’s own conclusion that the application of the triage process criteria involved indirect discrimination; and

iii.

relying on various factors (provisions under the Data Protection Act 2018, and other possible ways to raise indirect discrimination concerns) that do not, properly analysed, reduce the public interest in disclosure;

the FTT decision accepted that it was likely that “further information” was held by HO which had not been disclosed to PLP. However, it held that it did not have jurisdiction to require HO to conduct a further search for that material, since PLP’s request had been specified at “internal review stage” (i.e. after the making of the original information request) to encompass such material. It reached that conclusion despite the fact that HO had accepted that specification and dealt with the full scope of the request in its response, and despite the fact that IC (having erroneously failed to deal with the point in the IC decision notice) had accepted that error in its response to the appeal and proposed that a substituted decision notice be issued on that point. The ground of appeal was that the FTT decision’s conclusion was wrong, and reached on an incorrect analysis of the law.