Willow v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice: [2016] UKUT 157 (AAC);[2018] AACR 7
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Judge Markus on 24 March 2016.
Read the full decision in
The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal (Willow v The Information Commissioner Ministry of Justice ) and this decision is reported as
Judicial Summary
Reported as [2018] AACR 7
Freedom of Information – exempt information – public interest – application of Article 3 of United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child
The appellant applied under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) for an unredacted version of a new manual issued for use in Secure Training Centres (STCs) for children and in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs). The Ministry of Justice refused the request on the basis that the unredacted manual was a restricted document under sections 31(1)(f) (good order) and 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) of FOIA. The appellant complained to the Information Commissioner who concluded that the requested information was likely to prejudice the maintenance of security and good order in YOIs and therefore section 31(1)(f) FOIA was engaged. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) which decided that the threat to the good order and security of YOIs and prisons and the safety implications for the inmates and staff favoured non-disclosure. The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) arguing that the F-tT’s reasons were inadequate and irrational and it had failed properly to consider the best interests of the child as required under Article 3 of United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The UT dismissed the appeal, holding amongst other things that the F-tT’s decision was not irrational, that its reasons were adequate and that the provisions of Article 3.1 had no application in the case. The appellant appealed against that decision to the Court of Appeal.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that:
-
the judgment of the F-tT was an assessment that was well within the bounds of the legitimate exercise of its responsibilities under the FOIA and cannot possibly be said to be irrational, perverse or inadequately reasoned (paragraph 37);
-
the relevance of the authorities relating to unincorporated treaty provisions in English law may arise where the meaning of a statute was ambiguous, however, in the context of this case the meaning of the words “public interest” was not in doubt and could not be clearer. It was a well-known and well understood concept both in law and in general use. Which factors are relevant to determining what was in the public interest in any given case are usually wide and various but that did not mean that it was necessary, at the outset, to resort to the UNCRC to determine the meaning of this perfectly common phrase (paragraph 48);
-
whether or not the UT was right to say that Article 3 of the UNCRC had no application in this case, the public interests surrounding children was clearly at the heart of the decision-making process (paragraph 52).
Updates to this page
Last updated 6 February 2019 + show all updates
-
Decision selected for reporting as [2018] AACR 7
-
Permission to appeal granted by Court of Appeal.
-
First published.