Council refused permission for appeal of tribunal order requiring it to publish redacted report
Havering Council has been refused permission to appeal a First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) order that it publish a historic self-assessment submitted as part of a Race Equality, Accessibility, Diversity, and Inclusion (READI) review undertaken by the Local Government Association.
Tribunal Judge Lynn Griffin rejected the council's appeal bid last week, according to a report from the Romford Recorder.
A spokesperson for the council said it was unable to comment further while it reviews its response and next steps.
The London borough initially refused to disclose the 400-page self-assessment, following a freedom of information request, citing section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs).
It said that it had asked for the personal experiences of staff on a strictly confidential basis as part of the self-assessment, adding that and the views shared within in it "were for the review team at the LGA only".
The applicant, journalist Charles Thomson, then complained to the Information Commissioner, who required the council to reconsider the request and either release the information or issue a refusal notice that met the Act’s statutory requirements.
Havering again refused, stating that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
The requester then appealed, leading to the FTT ordering disclosure of parts of the document, although it acknowledged that this might affect the LGA peer review process.
The Tribunal concluded that the requested material, redacted to remove personal data, should be disclosed under FOIA because even though the exemption was engaged the public interest in maintaining the exemption in relation to that material did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
Havering then applied for permission to appeal the FTT's findings, advancing the following two grounds:
- The failure of the Tribunal to adequately take into account the Information Commissioner’s views on the reduced public interest in disclosing the withheld information which in the council’s view, was more significant.
- The Tribunal's decision failed to recognise that making such reports public could discourage open and honest participation in similar voluntary processes in the future. “This could ultimately hinder the effectiveness of these reviews and the improvements they aim to achieve."
According to the Romford Recorder, Judge Griffin refused the appeal bid, finding that the argument had no realistic prospect of success "because it is an attempt to relitigate the issues before the tribunal".
She also concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the appeal, and that the council had failed to identify an arguable error of law.
Adam Carey
