Kevin Scranage v Information Commissioner & (Dismissed : Freedom of Information Act 2000)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant worked as a Trading Standards Officer and later a Senior Trading Standards Officer for Company A for several years until April 2009. During his later years of service, he claimed to have been bullied and intimidated by senior officers, culminating in disciplinary proceedings which he alleged were orchestrated to procure his dismissal. The Appellant suffered from stress and depression at the time. He took action against Company A before the Employment Tribunal, apparently claiming unfair dismissal, and subsequently took up a similar post at Company B. One of the senior officers involved in his allegations also moved from Company A to Company B, though there was no evidence of mistreatment at Company B or direct contact with the Appellant there.

Relations between the Appellant and the senior officers deteriorated further, resulting in the Appellant's conviction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which was later successfully appealed. The Appellant sought to rely on a judgment from a Crown Court judge to support his allegations, but this was excluded due to a Restraining Order forbidding publicizing the ruling. The Tribunal refused to admit this judgment as evidence and indicated it would notify the Crown Court judge of the possible breach.

The Appellant sent a letter to Company B on 11 December 2016 containing a series of questions alleging misconduct similar to that he attributed to Company A. Company B refused to provide the requested information, citing section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) on the basis that the requests were vexatious. The Information Commissioner upheld this refusal, and the Appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant's requests for information to Company B constituted vexatious requests within the meaning of section 14(1) of the FOIA.
2. Whether Company B was justified in refusing to provide the requested information on the grounds of vexatiousness.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The requests were not vexatious and would assist in addressing issues of hate crime, abuse, victimization, and harassment similar to what he suffered at Company A.
• Company B, by employing a senior officer allegedly involved in his mistreatment at Company A, condoned the abuse he experienced.
• He deserved answers to his questions on account of the harm he suffered.

Respondent's Arguments (Information Commissioner and Company B)

• The requests were vexatious, repetitive, and designed more to make unfounded accusations than to obtain recorded information.
• There was no evidence Company B conducted its duties as an employer in the manner alleged by the Appellant.
• The requests had little or no public interest value and were framed in insulting and potentially distressing terms.
• The requests demanded time and resources disproportionate to their usefulness and were part of a sustained campaign over several years.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal examined the nature of the requests made by the Appellant to Company B, noting they were part of a series of similar requests dating back several years. It found that the requests were largely framed as accusatory questions rather than genuine attempts to obtain recorded information. The Tribunal observed that the requests were insulting, potentially distressing, and demanded disproportionate time and resources relative to any likely benefit. It also noted the lack of evidence that Company B had engaged in any misconduct similar to that alleged against Company A. The Tribunal considered the public interest in the requests minimal, especially given their tendentious nature and the fact that similar requests had been made to other local authorities. The Tribunal concluded that Company B was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA to refuse the requests as vexatious, as the Appellant showed no intention to desist from such requests without this intervention.

Holding and Implications

The Tribunal DISMISSED the Appellant's appeal, upholding the refusal by Company B to provide the requested information on the basis that the requests were vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA.

The direct effect of this decision is that Company B is not required to take any further steps in relation to the Appellant's requests. The decision does not establish any new legal precedent but confirms the application of existing principles regarding vexatious requests under FOIA in the context of repetitive and accusatory information requests.