![[2025] UKUT 171 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Rabbi Kanter Webber’s submissions
Rabbi Kanter Webber’s submissions
Rabbi Kanter Webber adopted the position taken by the ICO in its Reply to the Appeal dated 13 June 2024 (see his email dated 16 July 2024).
In his email dated 31 January 2025, Rabbi Kanter-Webber disagreed with the argument that the open justice principle can only apply to a PMP if it is in fact exercising the judicial power of the state. Rabbi Kanter-Webber argued this is undermined by decisions in TZ v GMC [2015] EWHC 10001 and R(D) v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ. 143 and in SRA v Spector [2016] EWHC 37 (Admin). Rabbi Kanter-Webber argued that these cases confirm that the open justice principle is not synonymous with a body exercising the judicial power of the state.
- Heading
- The decision of the Upper Tribunal is to allow the appeal. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 30 January 2024 under case number EA/2022/0100 was made in error of law and is set aside The Upper Tribunal remits the appeal to the First-tier
- REASONS FOR DECISION
- Proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal and its decision
- Legal framework
- In this section—
- Grounds on which I granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- The hearing on 13 February 2025 and the parties’ submissions
- Rabbi Kanter Webber’s submissions
- The ICO’s submissions
- Hampshire Constabulary’s submissions
- Did the FTT make an error of law in its decision dated 30 January 2024?
- Disposal of appeal
- Is a PMP a court within the meaning and application of section 32 of FOIA?
- A summary of the relevant principles
- My analysis: Does a PMP exercise the judicial power of the state within the meaning and application of section 32 of FOIA?
- Conclusions