Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BETWEEN
Appellant
and
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Respondent
Reasons
3. Mr advances four errors of law: (i) misapplying the legal test in the Upper
Tribunal decision in Dransfield; (ii) lack of objectivity; (iii) taking into account
irrelevant factors; and (iv) failure to take into account relevant factors. The Tribunal
will consider each in turn.
Misapplication of Dransfield
4. The Upper Tribunal decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal and it is the
latter decision which governs. It is binding on the Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal explained in paragraph 53 et seq why the first part of the request (the
only part realistically in issue because of the unchallenged application of section
12 FOIA to the second part) had negligible value to set against the weighty indicia
of vexatiousness the Tribunal had identified. In short: even if the information in
question – the identity of the Magistrates’ Advisory Committee (MAC) whose
decision had failed to reach the complainant in Case Study 5 – could be said to
have any value in principle, the police had the power to obtain it and there was
therefore no need for Mr to use FOIA to advance his stated desire for a
criminal investigation (the sole reason he had advanced for wanting the
information). He does not explain why this assessment is erroneous in principle.
10. Mr does not dispute the fact that the cases cited by the Tribunal were lost.
He misunderstands why the Tribunal referred to them. This was to highlight
examples of his obsessive and unreasonable behaviour, repeated in the present
case. The pattern of behaviour, over a number of years, was relevant to the finding
of vexatiousness the Tribunal made. The fact that he had lost the previous cases
was not by itself a significant factor in the Tribunal’s finding.
11. In any event, the propriety of costs sought by council tax authorities – the subject
of Mr ’s extensive analysis in his Grounds of Appeal – has no relevance to
the present case, where his explanation for wanting the information in question
was so that the police could investigate whether there was criminal conduct by
Magistrates’ Court and MACs in purporting, but failing, to send letters to
complainants. Mr cannot use this case as a vehicle for his more general
campaign against the costs orders sought by council tax authorities: the
information in question could not advance that campaign.
12. It is not arguable that the Tribunal lacked objectivity. It noted, for example, that he
had been successful in a complaint against the police and that HMCTS upheld
another.
2
13. Apart from the citing of previous unsuccessful cases, Mr appears to identify
two irrelevant factors: (i) the unfounded allegations of corruption he routinely
makes; and (ii) that fact that the original costs order was only for £60.
15. As to (ii), the Tribunal was at pains to stress in its decision (paragraph 46) not only
that £60 was not an insignificant sum for him but that the importance of ensuring
competent and honest public administration transcends the money at stake in a
particular case. The amount originally at stake played no part in the Tribunal’s
finding of vexatiousness: the Tribunal simply observed that a relatively modest
sum had spawned legal and quasi-legal proceedings costing thousands of pounds.
16. Mr has not established an arguable case that the Tribunal took into account
irrelevant factors.
17. The only factor Mr appears to have identified is the Tribunal’s alleged
naivete in assuming that the police will properly investigate public authorities. Even
if this was capable of constituting a relevant factor in law in the present context
(which is doubtful), Mr has misunderstood what the Tribunal said. It made
no assumption that the police would carry out a full investigation. Its point was
rather that, if the police wanted to do so, it had the power to find out for itself which
was the MAC highlighted in Case 5 and there was therefore no need for Mr
to use FOIA for this purpose. If the police is likely to be as uninterested as he
suggested, his obtaining the information via FOIA would not help.
Conclusion
19. Mr has failed to identify any arguable error of law in the Tribunal’s decision
and his application is therefore dismissed. There is no other compelling reason for
the Upper Tribunal to consider the case.
Signed