Tribunal rules on Sussex Police data

In a landmark ruling on 2nd June 2025, the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) granted Derek Speight’s appeal for information from Sussex Police concerning parking offences. The appeal, formally titled Derek Speight v The Information Commissioner & Anor, focused on the application of section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which governs the disclosure of personal data.

Derek Speight had initially submitted a request in October 2022, targeting data related to reported violations for "Parking on Zig-zag Lines." He specifically sought the number of reports received, along with the figures pertaining to advisory letters and retained intelligence on these offences. Sussex Police withheld specific information, arguing that disclosing it would breach data protection principles, as it was classified as personal data under section 40(2) FOIA.

Upon receiving the rejection, Speight requested an internal review on 20 April 2023, which upheld the initial decision to withhold information. Following this, Speight took his case to the Information Commissioner, challenging the Police's interpretation of personal data. He asserted that the withheld data could not identify individuals and thus should be made public.

The Tribunal held several hearings throughout 2024 and early 2025 to evaluate the evidence surrounding the case. A critical aspect of these deliberations was the definition of personal data and the requirement that true identification must be established for information to be deemed personal under FOIA.

In a pivotal shift, the Information Commissioner changed their previously rigid stance and expressed reluctance to uphold the original decision of nondisclosure. They acknowledged a lack of evidence demonstrating that individuals could be identified from the withheld data, thus concluding that it failed to meet the criteria of personal data classification for FOIA purposes.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner’s adjusted position. They determined that releasing the requested information would not permit any individual to identify those referenced in the reports. Furthermore, the Tribunal pointed out that Speight's purpose was to ensure the proper enforcement of parking violations and not to pursue personal grievances.

While addressing concerns from the Police regarding potential harassment that could arise from releasing the data, the Tribunal clarified their commitment to the legal standards around information disclosure rather than the perceived risks related to past interactions. They emphasised the importance of the FOIA's motive-blind characteristic, ensuring public access to information.

In its conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favour of Speight, ordering the Sussex Police to release the withheld information within 28 days of their decision. This case marks a significant moment in the interpretation of personal data and affirms the need for transparency in public records, striving to maintain a balance between privacy rights and the public’s right to information.

Documented under citation [2025] UKFTT 534 (GRC), the case illustrates the evolving nature of information rights within the UK legal framework and encourages more comprehensive scrutiny of what constitutes personal data in the realm of public accountability.