London Borough of Camden v Information Commissioner & YV

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 2 September 2011 under reference EA/2011/0007. The dispute arose regarding the disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), specifically concerning a list of empty properties held by the London Borough of Camden ("Camden"). Camden argued that disclosure would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, notably due to the risk of organized squatters using the information to identify empty properties, which could lead to increased criminal activity. The First-tier Tribunal initially concluded that the public interest favored disclosure and directed Camden to provide the information. The appeal challenges errors of law made by the First-tier Tribunal in its decision and subsequent alterations made under the slip rule.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in its application of the public interest test under section 2(2)(b) of the FOIA concerning the exemption for information prejudicial to the prevention or detection of crime under section 30.
2. Whether the Tribunal properly considered the nature and extent of other accountability mechanisms when assessing the public interest in disclosure.
3. Whether the presiding judge’s amendments under the slip rule (Rule 36) were lawful, particularly regarding the removal or addition of substantive reasoning in the Tribunal’s decision.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Disclosure of the list of empty properties would likely prejudice the prevention of crime by facilitating organized squatting and associated criminal activities.
• The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the interest in disclosure due to the risk of increased crime and related public costs, such as repair and security expenses for Council buildings.
• The Tribunal’s alterations to the decision under the slip rule were improper as they removed substantive reasoning and were not mere clerical corrections.

Respondent's Arguments

• The First-tier Tribunal found that the public interest favored disclosure, emphasizing accountability and the exceptional circumstances surrounding the information.
• The public interest in accountability is not significantly diminished by the existence of other regulatory mechanisms, as previously accepted in precedent.
• The amendments under the slip rule were justified to correct errors or omissions in the original decision.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal had made errors in law in its application of the public interest test under the FOIA. It emphasized that the public interest factors favoring maintenance of the exemption must relate directly to the prevention of crime, as protected by section 30. The Tribunal erred by considering irrelevant factors such as social disadvantage from living next to squatters, since squatting itself is not illegal. Legitimate factors included public costs related to preventing criminal damage.

Regarding accountability, the Tribunal misinterpreted precedent by treating the existence of other regulatory mechanisms as significantly reducing the public interest in disclosure. The Upper Tribunal clarified that such assessments must be contextual and that other accountability forms are relevant but not determinative.

The court also examined the use of the slip rule (Rule 36) by the presiding judge to amend the decision. It held that the rule is intended to correct minor clerical errors or accidental slips, not to allow substantive changes such as the removal of nine lines of explanation. The alterations made were thus unauthorized and constituted a misdirection.

Finally, the court noted that a judge should not rewrite a judgment after receiving grounds of appeal unless extraordinary reasons exist, which were absent here. The proper course is to remit the matter for rehearing by a differently constituted panel.

Holding and Implications

The Upper Tribunal SET ASIDE the decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 2 September 2011 for errors of law under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The case is REMITTED to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing before a differently constituted panel.

The direct effect is that the original decision ordering disclosure is quashed, and the matter must be reconsidered correctly applying the legal principles outlined. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the proper application of the public interest test and the limits of the slip rule in tribunal judgments.