Tribunal Upholds ICO's Decision on Vexatious FOIA Request

Background and Context

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) recently delivered its decision in the case of Mark Boyce vs The Information Commissioner, upholding the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) decision to classify a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request as vexatious. The Tribunal's decision, handed down on 9 January 2025, underscores the boundaries of FOIA requests and the ICO's discretion in managing potentially burdensome inquiries.

The Case and Initial Request

The case revolved around a request submitted by Mark Boyce on 23 October 2023, seeking all recorded information related to perceived inconsistencies in the ICO's application of section 14 of the FOIA concerning vexatious requests. Boyce's request highlighted a discrepancy between the ICO's published guidance and its actual practices regarding post-request events.

ICO's Response and Internal Review

The ICO responded promptly on 24 October 2023, deeming the request vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. This decision was based on previous interactions and the perceived burden of the request. An internal review conducted by the ICO on 23 November 2023 upheld this decision, citing the vexatious nature of the request as a key factor.

Tribunal's Consideration of the Appeal

Boyce appealed the ICO's decision, arguing that the right to request information is a constitutional right and that the ICO had misapplied the criteria for determining vexatious requests. The Tribunal, however, concluded that the ICO was justified in its decision, considering the history of Boyce's requests and the potential burden on the ICO.

Legal Framework and Tribunal's Analysis

The Tribunal's analysis was guided by the legal framework established in the case of Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council and Dransfield, which outlines the criteria for determining vexatious requests. The Tribunal considered factors such as the burden on the public authority, the motive of the requester, the value of the request, and any potential harassment or distress to staff.

Findings on Burden and Value

The Tribunal found that Boyce's request was overly broad and lacked specificity, which would impose a significant burden on the ICO to identify and review potentially vast amounts of information. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the request lacked a serious purpose or value, as the information sought would not effectively address Boyce's concerns regarding the ICO's practices.

Consideration of Motive and Harassment

While the Tribunal acknowledged that Boyce's motive was not improper, it noted that the request appeared to be part of a pattern of behaviour aimed at expressing dissatisfaction with the ICO. The Tribunal also considered the language used by Boyce in correspondence, which was deemed intemperate and potentially distressing to ICO staff.

Conclusion and Implications

The Tribunal concluded that the request was vexatious, as it constituted a disproportionate and unjustified use of the FOIA. This decision reinforces the ICO's ability to manage its resources effectively and highlights the importance of balancing the right to information with the need to protect public authorities from unreasonable requests.

Learn More

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