Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant requested from Company A a copy of a record from the 1921 Census relating to his great-uncle and aunt. Company A responded that the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 40(2), 41(1), and 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Appellant requested an internal review but received no response. The Appellant then complained to the Information Commissioner, who investigated and upheld the exemption under section 44(1)(a) of FOIA, citing a statutory prohibition under section 8(2) of the Census Act 1920. The Appellant appealed the Decision Notice to the Tribunal. The Tribunal determined the appeal without a hearing based on written submissions and documents, including the disputed information, which was withheld from the Appellant to preserve the appeal’s purpose.
Legal Issues Presented
- Is disclosure of the disputed information prohibited by any enactment so that the exemption provided by section 44 of FOIA is engaged?
If the Tribunal were to find that section 44 exemption did not apply, it would then consider whether the disputed information is exempt under sections 40(2), 41, or 22 of FOIA.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Tribunal began by outlining its powers under section 58 of FOIA, emphasizing that it may review findings of fact and law made by the Information Commissioner. The central legal question was whether disclosure was prohibited by enactment, engaging the absolute exemption under section 44 of FOIA.
The Tribunal analyzed section 8(2) of the Census Act 1920, which criminalizes unauthorized disclosure of personal census information by the Registrar General or persons under their control, including Company A. The disputed information was found to be personal census information within the meaning of the Census Act, a broader definition than that under the Data Protection Act 1998.
No lawful authority for disclosure was demonstrated. The Tribunal noted that consent by the subject does not constitute lawful authority, nor does FOIA itself provide such authority. The statutory prohibition remains valid and has not been repealed by Parliament.
Given this prohibition, the Tribunal concluded that the exemption under section 44(1)(a) of FOIA was engaged, constituting an absolute exemption that overrides any public interest in disclosure. Consequently, it was unnecessary to consider other exemptions raised by Company A.
The Tribunal briefly commented on the section 22 exemption (delayed publication), noting that the disputed information related to deceased individuals and questioning the reasonableness of withholding it until the 100-year rule applies, but this did not affect the core decision.
Holding and Implications
The Tribunal’s final decision was to DISMISS THE APPEAL and uphold the Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner.
The direct effect of this ruling is that the disputed census information remains exempt from disclosure under FOIA due to the statutory prohibition in the Census Act 1920. No new legal precedent was established beyond affirming the statutory bar on disclosure and the proper application of the absolute exemption under section 44 of FOIA.