We bring together information on the legal frameworks for the right to information from more than 100 countries.
You are here: Home Cases Kennedy v. the Charity Commission

Kennedy v. the Charity Commission

Case number:
[2014] UKSC 20
Country:
United Kingdom
Date of decision:
26 March, 2014
Court / Arbiter:
The UK Supreme Court (Supreme) ( Supreme )

Relevant law :
Freedom of Information Act, 2000; European Convention on Human Rights Article 10 ( )

Decision:

Although under the FOIA, information created for the purposes of an inquiry may be treated as absolutely exempt, the common law may nonetheless require such information to be disclosed.
Separate opinions: Principles of transparency and openness are part of the common law. Given their importance, courts will apply a very high standard of review to any decision not to disclose information in answer to questions of real public interest. Open justice is another fundamental principle of common law. Judicial, and quasi-judicial, processes should be open to public scrutiny, unless and to the extent, that there are good reasons for secrecy.


Keywords:
Budget information
Court papers (including case files, court orders)
Law enforcement / Administration of justice (including prevention/investigation/prosecution of crime, due process)
Media / Press
RTI law

Case details:

Facts

The applicant is a journalist who works for The Times. He made a request under the FOI Act 2000 to the Charity Commission for disclosure of information the latter had acquired within the scope of an inquiry conducted in connection with George Galloway’s “Mariam Appeal”, which was directed at aiding Iraq during the time of sanctions.

 

The request was refused by the Charity Commission on the ground that the information was subject to an absolute exemption from disclosure contained in section 32(2) of the FOIA, which states that information held by a public authority is exempt information if it is contained in any document placed in the custody of, or created by, “a person conducting an inquiry or arbitration, for the purposes of the inquiry or arbitration”. The applicant raised several issues in front of the Supreme Court including:  whether section 32(2) of the FOIA contains, as a matter of ordinary statutory construction, an absolute exemption which continues after the end of an inquiry; and (b) if it does contain such an absolute exemption, whether that is compatible with Mr Kennedy’s rights under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

Decision

As a matter of ordinary statutory construction, section 32(2) of the FOIA imposes an absolute exemption from disclosure that lasts until the relevant information is destroyed or for up to 30 (or in future 20) years under the Public Records Act 1958 (Lord Mance at [24-34], Lord Toulson at [102-104]).  The natural interpretation of section 32(2) is that the absolute exemption continues after the end of the relevant inquiry. The words “for the purposes of the inquiry or arbitration” refer to the original purpose for which the relevant documents were placed in the custody of, or were created by, a person conducting an inquiry. They do not refer to the purpose for which a public authority holds the documents at the time of a request for information. (Lord Mance at [24-28], Lord Toulson at [102-103])

 

The effect of section 32 is to take information falling within the absolute exemption outside the scope of the FOIA disclosure regime. Any question as to whether such information should be disclosed will be governed by other rules of statute and common law. If the law otherwise entitles Mr Kennedy to disclosure or puts him in a position no less favourable regarding disclosure than that which could be provided under article 10, then there can be no basis for concluding that it is inconsistent with article 10. (Lord Mance at [6-8, 35-42], Lord Toulson at [106])

 

In Lord Mance’s opinion, the Charity Commission has the power to disclose information to the public concerning inquiries on which it has published reports, both in pursuit of its statutory objective under the Charities Act of increasing public trust in charities, and under general common law duties of openness and transparency on public authorities. The exercise of that power will be subject to judicial review. Given the importance of the principles of openness and transparency, courts will apply a very high standard of review to any decision not to disclose information in answer to questions of real public interest raised by a journalist in relation to inquiries on which the Charity Commission has published reports. [43-56]

 

Similarly, Lord Toulson’s stated his opinion that open justice is a fundamental principle of common law. Judicial processes should be open to public scrutiny, unless and to the extent, that there are good reasons for secrecy. These underlying considerations apply also to any quasi-judicial inquiries and hearings, such as an inquiry conducted by the Charity Commission, though the application of such principles will vary according to context. In conducting any judicial review of a decision not to disclose information, the High Court should exercise its own judgment on whether the open justice principle requires disclosure. [109-132]

 

There were several dissenting opinions. Lord Wilson [160-201] and Lord Carnwath [202-248] would have allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Kennedy had a right to receive the requested information under article 10 of the Convention. They would read section 32(2) such that the absolute exemption expired at the end of the relevant inquiry.

 

References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment.

 

Resources: Judgment and Press release of the UK Supreme Court