Brown v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Freedom of Information Act 2000 section 32(1)(c) is an absolute, class-based exemption which covers information in electronic court records created by court staff for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter. The statutory language does not depend on the type or content of the information recorded.

Statistics obtainable only by interrogating such individual records are derived from exempt content and take its exempt character. Presenting the information in numerical form, without identifying parties or disclosing the underlying record, does not remove the exemption. The provision preserves the courts’ and tribunals’ control over disclosure of their own records.

Mr Brown requested statistics from the Ministry of Justice concerning without-notice non-molestation injunctions dealt with by Leeds County Court in 2006. The requested figures were held in Familyman, an electronic case-management database. The Ministry refused disclosure under Freedom of Information Act 2000 section 32(1)(c).

The Information Commissioner upheld that refusal. The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber), on 5 May 2015, dismissed Mr Brown’s appeal. It held that the relevant electronic records had been created by court staff for particular proceedings and were absolutely exempt. Mr Brown appealed on the question whether the exemption extended to statistical data drawn from, but not disclosing the content of, those records.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no error of law in holding that the requested statistics were exempt from disclosure.

2. Freedom of Information Act 2000 section 32(1) protects court records so that courts and tribunals retain control over what may be disclosed from their records. This purpose is wider than preventing non-parties from obtaining copies of court orders. It applies to written, audio and electronic court records.

3. A “document” for section 32 includes an electronic record or database. The word describes the form or format in which information is recorded. Information entered by court staff into Familyman as proceedings progressed was therefore information in documents created for the purposes of particular causes or matters within section 32(1)(c)(ii).

4. The exemption does not turn on whether the requested information consists of names, narrative content or anonymous figures. The requested statistics could only be produced by interrogating exempt individual court records. They were built from, and derived their character from, that exempt content. They remained exempt however the database was interrogated.

5. By section 2(3)(c), the exemption was absolute and no public-interest balancing exercise arose. The Ministry was entitled to refuse the request.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed Mr Brown’s appeal and confirmed that the First-tier Tribunal’s decision involved no error of law.
• First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber): on 5 May 2015, dismissed the appeal from the Information Commissioner’s decision notice and upheld reliance on Freedom of Information Act 2000 section 32(1)(c).