[2025] UKUT 114 (AAC)

It is for these reasons that I have reached the conclusion that what tips the balance in favour of disclosure is the lack of public transparency and accountability in respect of the serious allegation made against Mrs Patel, when seen in the relevant and important context of the previous example in 2017, when the Home Secretary’s behaviour did not (on her own admission and as accepted by the then Prime Minister) accord with the high standards and conduct required and expected of Ministers, albeit that I accept that there was no formal finding of a breach of the Ministerial Code in that case.

Mr Coppel KC rightly said that the question of Sir Philip Rutnam’s resignation loomed large in the decision of the Tribunal. That is so, but neither side seeks to uphold that decision. The ICO did not rely on it to the extent that the Tribunal did, although it clearly influenced his decision at [72], [74], [90] and [102].

Reconsidering the matter for myself and remaking the decision of the Tribunal below, although the allegations of bullying in relation to the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam no longer fall to be taken into account, and thus that the balance in favour of public disclosure is not as decisive as the ICO found in his original decision notice, the absence of that factor does not, in my judgment, suffice to tip the balance in favour of withholding disclosure. In the absence of that factor, the matter is more finely balanced, but I have concluded that the balance of the public interest nevertheless still justifies disclosure.