Arnold Martyres v Information Commissioner (Freedom of Information Act 2000)

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals concern three requests for information made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the Chief Constable of a police force by the Appellant. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) applied for all three appeals to be struck out on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success, asserting that the requests were "vexatious" under section 14 FOIA. The Appellant’s wife is engaged in protracted high court litigation with her sisters relating to disputes over land ownership and a will. The Appellant has made numerous complaints to the police alleging criminal offences by his wife’s opponents and public officials. The Tribunal was tasked with considering the ICO’s strike-out application and the nature of the requests in light of this background.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the three requests for information made by the Appellant to the Chief Constable are "vexatious" within the meaning of section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
2. Whether the burden imposed on the public authority by these requests justifies their refusal on the basis of vexatiousness.
3. Whether any exemptions under FOIA, such as section 40(2) relating to personal data, apply to the information sought in the requests.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant denied allegations concerning excessive correspondence and telephone calls made to the police.
• He claimed that records submitted by the police were "out of context" and constituted "hearsay".
• He alleged misuse of computers by senior police officers.
• He requested comprehensive disclosure of legal documents and communications relied upon by the police in prior statements.
• He sought personal data relating to third parties involved in related litigation, asserting concerns about the legal representation of his sisters-in-law.
• He alleged manipulation and fabrication of evidence supplied to the Independent Police Complaints Investigators.

Respondent's Arguments (Information Commissioner and Chief Constable)

• Both the ICO and the Chief Constable maintained that the requests were vexatious under section 14 FOIA, imposing an unreasonable burden on the public authority.
• The ICO argued that the requests had no reasonable prospect of success and were part of a pattern of vexatious behavior linked to ongoing private litigation.
• The Chief Constable noted that previous police investigations had found no evidence to support the Appellant’s criminal allegations and considered that proceedings for wasting police time might be appropriate.
• Regarding the request for personal data, the ICO indicated that section 40(2) FOIA would likely prevent disclosure due to privacy rights of third parties.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal considered the background of protracted litigation involving the Appellant’s wife and the Appellant’s repeated allegations of criminal conduct against various parties. It found that the requests were part of an ongoing pattern of vexatious behavior, imposing an unjustified burden on the police. The Tribunal analyzed each request individually:

• Request dated 24 November 2012: The Tribunal found it unreasonable to expect the police to gather all evidence relied upon for prior statements, especially given the time elapsed and the unfocused nature of the request. The request was deemed an abuse of the Act.
• Request dated 31 January 2013: The request sought personal data of third parties without any legitimate interest or justification. The Tribunal agreed with the ICO that this request was vexatious and also likely exempt under section 40(2) FOIA due to privacy concerns.
• Request dated 10 November 2012: This request related to documents connected to family litigation unrelated to the public authority. The Tribunal concluded it was vexatious by drift, following from prior unsuccessful complaints against the police.

Overall, the Tribunal emphasized the cumulative burden on the public authority, the lack of value in the requests, and the Appellant’s motivations as factors supporting a finding of vexatiousness. The Tribunal upheld the ICO’s decision notices, concluding that "enough is enough" and that continuing the appeals would be unfair to the public authority.

Holding and Implications

The Tribunal granted the ICO’s applications to strike out all three appeals on the basis that the requests were vexatious under section 14 FOIA. The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant’s requests for information are refused and the appeals are dismissed. The Tribunal did not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirmed the application of established principles regarding vexatious requests and the protection of public authorities from disproportionate burdens.