Christopher Billings v The Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1292 (GRC)

[2025] UKFTT 01292 (GRC)Case Reference: FT/EJ/2025/0009
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Date 04 November 2025
Information Rights
Decided without a hearing
Before
JUDGE SAWARD
Between
CHRISTOPHER BILLINGSApplicantTHE INFORMATION COMMISSIONERRespondentDecision: The proceedings are struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 because there is no reasonable prospect of the application, or part of it, succeeding.REASONS

Background

[1]A hearing took place before the Tribunal on 8 May 2025 to consider the Applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner dated 2 October 2024 (referenced IC-305117-Y8P5). The decision under appeal concerned requests for information made to Hampshire Constabulary (“the Constabulary”) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The appeal succeeded in part with the Tribunal making a Substituted Decision Notice in Case No. FT/EA/2024/0426. The Tribunal’s Decision was given on 2 June 2025 bearing citation number [2025] UKFTT 00633 (GRC).

Application to certify a contempt

[2]By application dated 9 July 2025, the Applicant has applied under Rule 7A of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 to certify a contempt against the Constabulary for an alleged failure to comply with the terms of the Tribunal’s Substituted Decision Notice. This decision should be read in conjunction with the promulgated Decision of 2 June 2025.[3]The Substituted Decision Notice found that:
“Hampshire Constabulary was not entitled to rely on section 30(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to refuse to confirm or deny whether information was held relating to a review of an investigation as set out in Request 4, and an application made by Hampshire Constabulary for a Court Order, as set out in Request 6. Hampshire Constabulary must confirm or deny whether the information was held within 35 days of the promulgation of this decision, or (if there is an application to appeal this decision) within 28 days after being notified of an unsuccessful outcome to such application or any resulting appeal.”
[4]Request 4 sought “a copy of the Review into the Investigation of [redacted] carried out in the summer of [date redacted], by 5 retired Hampshire Constabulary Police Officers, at the instruction of Detective Superintendent [redacted] Head of Serious and Organised Crime Investigation Command Hampshire Constabulary Detective Superintendent [redacted] told us that the review was an in-house unofficial review carried out by 5 retired police officers, both he and Hampshire Constabulary have made reference to this review on many occasions, for transparency we request a copy of it.”[5]The relevant part of Request 6 sought information concerning an application the Applicant believed the Constabulary had made for a Court Order to obtain documentation from the Solicitors who acted in civil proceedings connected with the Applicant’s ex-wife’s death.[6]As set out in paragraph 46 of the Decision, where the appeal succeeded it was solely on the duty to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. To comply with the Substituted Decision Notice, the Constabulary had to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information relating to:(a) a review of an investigation as set out in Request 4 of the Decision, and(b) an application made by the Constabulary for a Court Order, as set out in Request 6 of the Decision.[7]The timescale for compliance was within 35 days of the Decision being issued.[8]The Decision did not require the requested information to be divulged. The Tribunal could not, in the appeal before it, determine whether the information should be disclosed. This was because the appeal was made against the Information Commissioner’s decision that the Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 30(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to neither confirm nor deny that the requested information is held. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was wrong to conclude that the Constabulary could rely on section 30(3) for Request 4 and part of Request 6 and to refuse to confirm or deny whether the information was held. Essentially, the Constabulary was not allowed to neither confirm nor deny if it had that information.[9]The Constabulary confirmed to the Appellant on 4 July 2025 that the requested information (in Request 4 and part of Request 6) is held. In doing so, the Constabulary complied with the Tribunal’s substituted decision to either confirm or deny whether the information is held.[10]The Constabulary now relies upon other exemptions to refuse to disclose the information. As frustrating as it will no doubt be for the Applicant, it is not for the Tribunal in these contempt proceedings to decide if the exemptions now claimed are correct or reliable. That will be a matter in the first instance for the Information Commissioner should further complaint be made. Contempt is about compliance and not to scrutinise exemptions that are subsequently relied upon.[11]Under Rule 8(3)(c) of the 2009 Rules, the Tribunal may strike out the proceedings if it considers there is no reasonable prospect of the case succeeding. In Case Management Directions dated 14 October 2025, the Tribunal explained why it considers that the Constabulary has complied with the Substituted Decision Notice. The Applicant was given opportunity to make representations in response to the proposal to strike out the application to certify a contempt. No response was received.

Conclusion

[12]Now that the Constabulary has confirmed (within the timescale ordered) that the information is held as required in the Substituted Decision Notice, there is no reasonable prospect of the Tribunal finding the Constabulary in contempt. The application will be struck out, accordingly.