Freedom of Information Act Cases

Question 1

Leander v Sweden (1987)

Answer 1

ECHR ART 10
• “Article 10 does not… confer on an individual a right of access to a register containing information on his personal position, nor does it embody an obligation on the Government to impart such information to the individual”

Question 2

Roche v UK (2005)

Answer 2

ECHR ART 10
• ‘The court reiterates its conclusion… that the freedom to receive information “prohibits a Government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him” and that that freedom “cannot be construed as imposing on a state… positive obligations to… disseminate information of its own motion”

Question 3

BBC v Sugar (No 2) (2012)

Answer 3

FOIA
art. 10 confers no general right to freedom of information
• S wrote to the BBC requesting a copy of an internal report concerning its news coverage of the Middle East. It was agreed that the report was held by the BBC partly for the purposes of journalism and partly for purposes of ‘strategic policy and resource allocation’.
• The BBC is listed in Sch.1 of the Act ‘in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature’. What does this provision exclude?
• the Supreme Court considered 3 possibilities:
• a) only information held solely for the purposes of journalism, art or literature is excluded;
• b) information held predominantly for these purposes is excluded, even if it is also held for other purposes;
• c) any information held for these purposes is excluded, even if it is held predominantly for another purpose
• By a majority of 4-1, the Supreme Court opted for interpretation (c) (Lord Wilson preferred interpretation (b)).

Question 4

R (Evans) v Attorney-General (2015)

Answer 4

FOIA
• Requested copies of letters between the Prince of Wales and various gov’t departments
• Departments refused requests, as did the Information Commissioner, but Upper Tribunal allowed appeal
o Attorney General issued a certificate overriding the Upper Tribunal’s decision
o E sought judicial review of the Attorney General’s decision
o The Divisional Court dismissed his claim, but the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal
o The government then appealed to the Supreme Court
o Ministerial veto quashed