Roger Little v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2023] UKFTT 277 (GRC)

[2023] UKFTT 00277 (GRC)
First-Tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Date 14 March 2023
Information Rights
Roger LittleAppellant:The Information CommissionerFirst Respondent:Chief Constable of Thames Valley PoliceSecond Respondent:Roger LittleAppellantThe Information CommissionerRespondentChief Constable of Thames Valley PoliceRespondentDate and type of Hearing: 16 September 2022 a hearing on the papers resulting in joinder of the Public Authority as Second Respondent and Open and Closed Case Management Directions and further an Oral hearing on the CV Platform with the Appellant present and detailed and comprehensive written submissions for Respondents on 3 March 2023.Panel: Brian Kennedy QC, Naomi Matthews, and David Cook.Roger Little, as litigant in person. for Appellant for First Respondent: Helen Wrighton, Solicitor by way of written submissions. for Second Respondent: Guy Lemon, Head of Legal Services.Result: The appeal is dismissed.REASONS
[53]“ - - - - the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of information gathered for the purposes of a criminal investigation, is not only important to avoid the deterrent, or chilling, effect on future investigations of a perception that there might be disclosure to the world at large. There are also fundamental duties of confidentiality and fairness to those who have already provided such information. As the authorities referred to in Section B of these submissions exemplify, those duties are real and significant. That is a weighty factor in favour of maintaining the exemption”. At Para 24:[55]“Making comments to the media, which may or may not have been reported or broadcast in full or in context, is a wholly different process to giving a formal statement or being interviewed by the police. In any event, what a person says when interviewed on TV may, or may not, be the same as what they subsequently say in a witness statement to the police (or when interviewed by the police). If it is the same, then nothing is added by making their statement publicly available. If it is not, then that reinforces the need to uphold the duty of confidentiality to that person.” [51]. In all the circumstances and on the evidence before us, we find no error of Law in the DN and we find no error in Law or in any discretion exercised by the Commissioner in the impugned DN and accordingly we must, and unanimously do, dismiss this appeal. Brian Kennedy KC. 6 March 2023.