[2025] UKUT 251 (AAC)

The Notice under appeal sets out the context in detail, including specifying that it was issued under s.51(1)(a). It describes the multi-part request made under s.1 at [2], the second, presently relevant, part of which is “Is there a public record of talks between goldmine companies discussing security costs and can the public see them”, which as a result of the consent order in the earlier appeal (EA/2021/0112) on the same request, at [1(b)], the scope of this request has been clarified to mean “any record of talks between goldmine companies discussing security costs”. It explains the history of the handling of the request, and the Consent Order previously entered into in connection with it at [3].

The Notice notes the issue of a further response confirming the holding of information in response to the second part of the request, but withholding that information on the basis of s.42(1) (amongst other exemptions) at [4-5]. The requestor made a complaint to the IC about this response under s.50: at [8]. The Notice records that the IC sought all the withheld information in accordance with “his usual practice” from the PSNI, but that the PSNI refused to provide that part of the information over which LPP was claimed: at [7-8]. The Notice explains at [12] the IC’s position that sight of the information was required to assess the legality of the PSNI’s response to the request, and that the IC does not accept the PSNI’s stance that FOIA does not require it to provide LPP material to him: at [12-13}.

In essence, the IC’s basis for the issue of the Notice was that the refusal of the PSNI to provide the information to him, or to comply with the Notice, was (and is) frustrating his ability of the to fulfil his duty under s.50 to issue a decision notice to the requestor, denying them a definitive conclusion to his investigation.