Freedom of Information in UK Law

In my judgment these three cases fall far short of establishing that an individual's article 10(1) freedom to receive information is interfered with whenever, as in the present case, a public authority, acting consistently with the domestic legislation governing the nature and extent of its obligations to disclose information, refuses access to documents.

Information is the key to sound decision-making, to accountability and development; it underpins democracy and assists in combatting poverty, oppression, corruption, prejudice and inefficiency. Administrators, judges, arbitrators, and persons conducting inquiries and investigations depend upon it; likewise the press, NGOs and individuals concerned to report on issues of public interest. These competing considerations, and the balance between them, lie behind the issues on this appeal.

In my view, whatever meaning is given to “journalism” I would not be sympathetic to the notion that information about, for instance, advertising revenue, property ownership or outgoings, financial debt, and the like would normally be “held for purposes … of journalism”. No doubt there can be said to be a link between such information and journalism: the more that is spent on wages, rent or interest payments, the less there is for programmes.

"Necessary" has been strongly interpreted: it is not synonymous with "indispensable" neither has it the flexibility of such expressions as "admissible" "ordinary" "useful" "reasonable" or "desirable": Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737, 754, para 48.