Tribunal dismisses appeal over vexatious FOIA request

Background of the Case

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) recently dismissed an appeal by Peter Marshall against the Information Commissioner and the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust. The case revolved around a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request made by Mr Marshall, which was deemed vexatious by the First Respondent, the Information Commissioner.

Case Details

Mr Marshall's appeal stemmed from an incident on 27 April 2015, when his father suffered a cardiac arrest. An ambulance was delayed in reaching the property due to mapping issues. Mr Marshall pursued extensive correspondence with the Trust, including multiple FOIA requests, to address perceived failures in the mapping information.

In May 2023, the Trust warned Mr Marshall that further requests might be considered vexatious. Despite this, Mr Marshall made another request in March 2024, which the Trust refused under FOIA, s14, citing it as vexatious. Mr Marshall appealed this decision, leading to the current tribunal case.

Tribunal's Decision

The tribunal, consisting of Judge Anthony Snelson and members Marion Saunders and Paul Taylor, reviewed the appeal on the papers without a hearing. They unanimously determined that the appeal was without merit and upheld the Commissioner's decision.

Legal Framework

Under FOIA, s14, a request can be refused if it is deemed vexatious. The tribunal referred to the case of Dransfield v Information Commissioner, which highlighted factors such as the burden on the public authority, the requester's motive, and the value of the request. The tribunal found that Mr Marshall's request placed an unreasonable burden on the Trust, particularly given the extensive history of his communications.

Analysis and Conclusion

The tribunal noted that the original issues raised by Mr Marshall had been addressed by 2019, yet his requests continued. They described Mr Marshall's approach as 'vexatiousness by drift,' where the focus shifted from the original issues to tangential matters. The tribunal concluded that the request had little value and did not serve the public interest.

Furthermore, the tribunal emphasised that FOIA is not intended to further personal campaigns, regardless of their sincerity. They urged Mr Marshall to consider the potential for future findings of vexatiousness if he continued with similar requests.

Outcome

The tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Information Commissioner. They acknowledged the distressing circumstances that initiated Mr Marshall's concerns but reiterated the importance of FOIA's intended purpose.

Learn More

For more information on data protection, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.