Kennedy v Information Commissioner and another (Secretary of State for Justice and Others intervening) [SC]
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | Lord Mance,Lord Neuberger,Lord Clarke,Lord Toulson,Lord Sumption,Lord Wilson,Lord Carnwath |
Judgment Date | 26 March 2014 |
Neutral Citation | [2014] UKSC 20 |
Court | Supreme Court |
Date | 26 March 2014 |
Lord Neuberger, President
Lord Mance
Lord Clarke
Lord Wilson
Lord Sumption
Lord Carnwath
Lord Toulson
Appellant
Philip Coppel QC
Andrew Sharland
(Instructed by Bates Wells & Braithwaite LLP)
Respondent
James Eadie QC
Karen Steyn
Rachel Kamm
(Instructed by Charity Commission Legal Services)
1 st Intervener
James Eadie QC
Karen Steyn
Rachel Kamm
(Instructed by Treasury Solicitors)
2 nd Intervener
Ben Hooper
(Instructed by The Information Commissioner)
3 rd Intervener
Richard Clayton QC
Christopher Knight
(Instructed by Media Legal Defence Initiative and Campaign for Freedom of Information)
Heard on 29 and 31 October 2013
Lord Mance (with whom Lord Neuberger and Lord Clarke agree)
Introduction | |
The background in more detail | |
The statute law | |
The construction of the Freedom of Information Act ("the FOIA") section 32 | |
Is article 10 of the Human Rights Convention relevant when construing section 32? | |
Conclusion | |
Article 10 in detail | |
Analysis of position under article 10 | |
General international legal principles | |
Ullah – "no more but certainly no less" | |
Overall conclusions |
1. 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. Unwillingness to disclose information may arise through habits of secrecy or reasons of self-protection. But information can be genuinely private, confidential or sensitive, and these interests merit respect in their own right and, in the case of those who depend on information to fulfil their functions, because this may not otherwise be forthcoming. These competing considerations, and the balance between them, lie behind the issues on this appeal.
2. This appeal concerns the relationship between the Charity Commission, a public authority responsible for inquiries in relation to which it requires information from third parties, and the press, concerned to understand and report on the Charity Commission's performance of its role. It also concerns the relationship between the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the FOIA") and the statutory and common law position regarding the disclosure of information outside the scope of the FOIA.
3. The FOIA provides a framework within which there are rights to be informed, on request, about the existence of, and to have communicated, information held by any public authority. But the framework is not all-embracing. First, these rights do not apply at all in cases which are described as "absolute exemptions" (see sections 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b)) and are subject to a large number of other carefully developed qualifications. Second, as the other side of this coin, section 78 of the FOIA specifies that nothing in it "is to be taken to limit the powers of a public authority to disclose information held by it".
4. In the present case, Mr Kennedy, an experienced journalist with The Times, has been long concerned to investigate and understand more about three inquiries conducted under the Charities Act 1993 by the Charity Commission in relation to an appeal ("The Mariam Appeal") founded by Mr George Galloway MP in 1998 and operated until 2003. He views the two brief reports by the Charity Commission on these inquiries as leaving significantly unclear the basis upon which the Commission conducted the inquiries, the information on which it acted, its communications with other public authorities and its conclusions. On 8 June 2007 he made corresponding requests for disclosure of documentation by the Charity Commission under the FOIA.
5. In response, the Charity Commission points to an absolute exemption contained in section 32(2) of the FOIA. This exempts the Charity Commission from any duty to disclose any document placed in its custody or created by it for the purposes of an inquiry which it has in the public interest conducted in the exercise of its functions. The Charity Commission submits that this exemption lasts until the document is destroyed — or, if the document is one that ought to be publicly preserved, that it lasts for up to 30 (or in future 20) years under the Public Records Act 1958, section 3 as amended for the future by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, section 45(1).
6. Section 32 is a section dealing with information held by courts and persons conducting an inquiry or arbitration. Its intention was not that such information should not be disclosed. Its intention was to take such information outside the FOIA. Any question as to its disclosure was to be addressed under the different and more specific schemes and mechanisms which govern the operations of and disclosure by courts, arbitrators or persons conducting inquiries. With regard to the Charity Commission the relevant scheme and mechanism is found in the Charities Act 1993, as amended by the Charities Act 2006 (since replaced by the Charities Act 2011), the construction of which is informed by a background of general common law principles. In the present case, the focus has, however, been on the FOIA as if it were an exhaustive scheme. The argument has been, in effect, that, unless a prima facie right to disclosure can be found in the FOIA, United Kingdom law must be defective, and in breach of what is said to be the true interpretation of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But that misreads the statutory scheme, and omits to take into account the statutory and common law position to which, in the light of sections 32 and 78 in particular, attention must be addressed.
7. The Court of Appeal thus correctly held in R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court (Article 19 intervening) [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618 that it was "quite wrong to infer from the exclusion" by section 32 of court documents from the FOIA that "Parliament intended to preclude the court from permitting a non-party to have access to such documents if the court considered such access to be appropriate under the open justice principle" (para 74). That was a case concerning court documents, but the same general point applies to inquiry documents: section 32 is no answer to any power which the holder of an inquiry may have to disclose, or which the court may have to order disclosure in respect of, inquiry documents outside section 32.
8. In the present case, Mr Kennedy's claim to disclosure by the Charity Commission has only ever been pursued by reference to the FOIA. At the outset, before it referred to section 32, the Charity Commission did on 4 July 2007 explain in a little detail the factors which it saw as relevant to any issue of disclosure. It said:
"There is a strong public interest in the Commission being able to carry out its functions which is expressly recognised by the [FOIA] in section 31(2)(f)-(h). Section 31 exempts from disclosure information which, if released, would prejudice the Commission's functions in protecting charities against misconduct or mismanagement (whether by trustees or other persons) in their administration, protecting the property of charities from loss or misapplication and recovering the property of charities. The Commission relies very much on the co-operation of and liaison with a variety of third parties in undertaking these functions and routine disclosure of regulatory communication between the Commission and these parties would adversely affect the Commission in its work.
The competing public interest is for transparency of the decisions and reasons for them so as to promote public confidence in charities. This is tempered by the need for confidentiality in the exchange of information. In my view, at this time, balance of the public interest weighs more strongly with securing the Commission's ability to carry out its functions efficiently and therefore lies in withholding the information."
Outside the FOIA, and in particular if this had been the response given to a claim for disclosure under the Commission's Charities Act powers and duties, the response could have been tested by judicial review on ordinary public law principles. Instead, Mr Kennedy's claim was and has only ever been put on the basis that the FOIA must be construed or remodelled so as to give him a claim under that Act.
9. In these circumstances, the issues directly arising on this appeal are limited. The first is whether section 32(2) contains, as a matter of ordinary construction, an absolute exemption which continues after the end of an inquiry. Mr Philip Coppel QC representing Mr Kennedy submits that it does not. That failing, he relies, second, on what he describes as a current "direction of travel" of Strasbourg case law for a proposition that article 10 of the Convention imposes a positive duty of disclosure on public authorities, at least towards "public watchdogs" like the press, in respect of material of genuine public interest, subject to the exemptions permitted by article 10(2). On that basis, and in the light of the duty in section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to interpret primary legislation "so far as it is possible to do so ….. in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights", he submits that section 32 should...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jane Eastwood v The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
...its section 178 powers in April 2013. In the course of this submission Mr Cottle referred to, but did not take us to, Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20; [2015] AC 455. 45 I am not persuaded that it is open to Mr Cottle to advance this submission on this appeal. It seems to me to f......
-
DE v AB [No 2]
... ... J FD12P04004 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL ... without permission of the court any information or documents disclosed in or used for the ... it in private (in which case the court must state those grounds in public): see section 1 of the ... Another example given by the Lord Chancellor was ... protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information ... It was accepted on behalf of the Home Secretary that A's deportation would be unlawful unless the ... that case: "As Lord Toulson observed in Kennedy v The Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20 at ... ...
-
Chantelleday v The Cayman Islands
...[193]. 123 Above at [108] 124 At [150] of his written submissions 125 See com/2018/03/cayman-islands-governor-gay-rights/> 126 Above. 127 [2014] UKSC 20; [2015] AC 455 128 Above at [48] 129 Obergefell v Hodges 576 U.S (2015), at ppl2 and 13, per Justice Kennedy (for the majority). 130 [2007......
-
The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago v Dr. Keith Rowley the Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
...is required. It relied on Lord Mance's judgment in Kennedy v Charity Commission (Secretary of State for Justice and others intervening) [2015] AC 455 advocating for more demanding scrutiny of decisions which impact constitutional rights: “ 55 Speaking generally, it may be true (as Laws J sa......
-
Supreme Court Widens Access For Non-Parties To Litigation Documents
...the principles governing the exercise of that jurisdiction were those laid out in Guardian News and Media, Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20, A v British Broadcasting Corporation [2014] UKSC 25 and this Lady Hale noted that there had been no argument on the extent of the continuin......
-
RIGHTISM, REASONABLENESS AND REVIEW: SECTION 377A OF THE PENAL CODE AND THE QUESTION OF EQUALITY – PART ONE
...is evident in the flexible approach where greater judicial scrutiny applies to fundamental rights cases: Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] 2 WLR 808 at [51]–[55]. 67 Tay Yong Kwang J in Chiu Teng @Kallang Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority [2014] 1 SLR 1047 at [119] considered that the do......
-
Reason‐Giving in Administrative Law: Where are We and Why have the Courts not Embraced the ‘General Common Law Duty to Give Reasons’?
...on Open Justice and the Status of the General CommonLaw Duty to Give Reasons’ (2018) 77 CLJ 240.114 Kennedy vInformation Commissioner [2014] UKSC 20, [2015] AC 455 (Kennedy).115 See fur ther discussion in J. Bell, ‘Kent and Oakley: A Re-Examination of the Common LawDuty to Give Reasons for ......
-
Falling into Line? The Hostile Environment and the Legend of the ‘Judges’ Revolt’
...15th ed (1809) vol 1,137.137 T.Baty,‘The Nationality of a Mar ried Woman at Common Law’(1936) LQR 247.138 Kennedy vCharity Commission [2014] UKSC 20 at [46] per Lord Mance.139 For further discussion of CLCR in this context: C.Rowe ‘Skype kids and the price elasticity ofdemand: constructing ......
-
What Makes an Administrative Decision Unreasonable?
...PL 238.9 P.Craig, ‘The Nature of Reasonableness Review’ (2013) 66 Cur rent Legal Problems 131, 132.10 Kennedy vCharity Commissioners [2014] UKSC 20, [2015] AC 455 at [54].11 Pham vSecretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, [2015] 1 WLR 1591 at [60].12 ibid at [112], [114].13......