[2025] UKUT 114 (AAC)

The Tribunal was required to consider the request afresh and reach its own view as to the balance of public interests (if authority were needed, see Malnick at [90]).

In his Response to the application for permission to appeal, the ICO listed eight supposed differences between his own decision notice and the decision of the Tribunal. He argued that that demonstrated that the Tribunal did indeed approach the issues afresh.

Given that what follows in the Cabinet Office’s submissions refers directly to the eight points in the Response of the ICO, it makes sense to set them out here before referring to the Cabinet Office’s submissions in response to them:

the Tribunal did not appear to place weight on the content of the withheld information in question. For example, it did not produce a Closed annex to its judgment which considered the particular public interest in disclosure of the information with reference to the points identified in the ICO’s skeleton argument.

the Tribunal did not appear to have placed weight on the fact that provisions of the Code and BARs concerning retrospective applications to ACOBA were clear and unambiguous. The ICO’s view was that the clarity of the rules in question heightened the public interest in disclosure.