Gerry Woodhouse v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2025] UKFTT 1528 (GRC)

[2025] UKFTT 01528 (GRC)

Case Reference: EA/2024/0270

First-tier Tribunal

General Regulatory Chamber

Hearing Heard on the papers

Date 11 December 2025

Information Rights

Heard/Deliberated on: 4 June 2025, 29 October 2025 and 19 November 2025

Before

TRIBUNAL JUDGE FOSS

TRIBUNAL MEMBER YATES

TRIBUNAL MEMBER PEPPERELL

Between

GERRY WOODHOUSEAppellant

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONERRespondent

NORTH YORKSHIRE POLICERespondent

unrepresented for Appellant

for First Respondent: Information Commissioner’s Office

for Second Respondent: unrepresented

Decision: The appeal is ALLOWED. The Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice, referenced IC-275052-W8S1, is not in accordance with the law.

Substituted Decision Notice:

Within 35 days of promulgation of this decision, North Yorkshire Police shall issue a fresh response to the Appellant’s request for information dated 23 September 2023, compliant with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which must address the Appellant’s request for copies of correspondence sent by North Yorkshire Police in 2023 to Potto Parish Council relating specifically to any emails and information received by Potto Parish Council in January, February, March, April and May 2023 and sent on to North Yorkshire Police by Potto Parish Council between January and May 2023 inclusive, as referenced in Potto Parish Council’s agenda minutes for those months as follows:

•January 2023 – item 8.2

•February 2023 – item 11.0

•March 2023–item 4.3.3

•March 2023 – item 4.10.2

•April 2023 - item 4.3.4

•May 2023 - item 6.3

REASONS

Introduction to the Appeal

[1]This is an appeal made pursuant to s57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) against the Decision Notice of the First Respondent (“the Commissioner”), referenced IC-275052-W8S1 dated 10 June 2024, by which the Commissioner decided that the Second Respondent (“NYP”) was entitled to refuse the Appellant’s request for information from NYP dated 23 September 2023 in reliance on s31(1)(a) and (b) FOIA (law enforcement).

[2]We set out part of our reasoning in this OPEN judgment of 14 pages and the greater part of our reasoning in a CLOSED judgment of 21 pages, the latter containing information which NYP seeks to withhold.

The Request

[3]On 23 September 2023, the Appellant asked NYP this (“the Request”): “I refer to the published meeting minutes of Potto parish council [“the Council”]. The 2023 minutes record that a number of complaints and emails have been sent by Potto council to North Yorkshire Police (NYP), with allegations of harassment and vexatious content. I refer in particular to the minutes for January item 8.2, February item 11.0, March item 4.3.3 and also March item 4.10.2, April item 4.3.4 and May item 6.3. As an example, May item 6.3 states ‘A number of correspondences have been forwarded to NY Police, these are being investigated’. However, I understand that there is no evidence of harassment or vexatious content in any of this correspondence – I suggest that Potto council is wasting Police time. I contend, contrary to the statement in May item 6.3 ‘these are being investigated’, the fact is that none of the council’s allegations are being ‘investigated’. Accordingly, please provide me with a copy of any correspondence, as sent by NYP to Potto council during 2023, with regard to the matters raised in the above agenda items. Please provide me with a copy of the ‘investigation’ report (or confirm information not held). I realise that this is a wide timeframe, but I understand that the total correspondence in 2023 from NYP to Potto council likely consists of only one or two emails. For clarification, please exclude any other correspondence about matters unrelated to these agenda items, such as routine or monthly crime stats, etc”.

[4]The relevant extracts of the agenda minutes as follows:

“January 2023 8.2 Email sent to Parishioners – Parishioner are receiving unsolicited email from someone who is using the oil group email list. Many residents are concerned about their personal security and how their emails had been obtained. The emails and information has been forwarded to the Police. February 2023 11.0 A vexatious email was sent to a councillor, this has been forwarded to North Yorkshire Police. March 20234.3.3 • A number of correspondences have been forwarded to NY Police, these are being investigated, the Charity “Protection against Stalking” is assisting the parish council. March 2023 4.10.2 • Discussed complaint from Journalist against Clerk, it was noted that the author was misrepresenting themselves, details to be forwarded to NY Police. April 2023 4.3.4 • A number of correspondences have been forwarded to NY Police, these are being investigated, the Charity “Protection against Stalking” is assisting the parish council. May 2023 6.3 • A number of correspondences have been forwarded to NY Police, these are being investigated, the Charity “Protection against Stalking” is assisting the parish council”

. February 2023 March 20234.3.3 March 2023 4.10.2 April 2023 4.3.4

May 2023 6.3

[5]On 27 September 2023, NYP responded to the Request. NYP confirmed that it held the requested information but stated that it was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s40(2) FOIA (personal data).

[6]The Appellant requested an internal review. On 19 October 2023, NYP confirmed that it maintained its position. Additionally, NYP said that any future requests for information by the Appellant in relation to the Council would be considered pursuant to s14 FOIA (vexatiousness).

[7]On 5 December 2023, the Appellant complained to the Commissioner. He said that: there is no published evidence of harassment or vexatious content in any of the correspondence referred in the minutes subject of the Request; there is no published evidence to substantiate an investigation; the Council’s expressed policy of referring matters to NYP was an attempt to intimidate, and deter, the public from exercising their right to hold the Council to account; he suspected that NYP had informed the Council to cease forwarding correspondence from the public to the Council; although the March, April and May 2023 meeting minutes referred to an ongoing investigation, as the results of such an investigation had never been revealed, it was reasonable to suppose that there was no such investigation, or that the Council’s asserting the fact of an investigation was untrue.

The Commissioner’s investigation

[8]The Commissioner investigated. NYP made enquiries of relevant officers within NYP about NYP’s communications with the Council and kept the Commissioner informed of those enquiries as they were undertaken.

[9]On 26 March 2024, NYP wrote to the Commissioner, indicating that it considered that s31 FOIA (law enforcement) might apply to the requested information, and, given that this was now the fourth request for information submitted, that s14 FOIA (vexatiousness) might apply. NYP did not say by whom four requests had been submitted. We infer that they were referring to the Appellant.

[10]By the same letter, NYP provided the Commissioner with an email chain “relating to correspondence between [officer name redacted] and Potto Parish Council about complaints against [the Appellant].” The email chain appears only in CLOSED material, and we address its contents in our CLOSED judgment.

[11]The Commissioner raised further questions of NYP and NYP responded as follows, in summary: a. The Commissioner had asked why NYP had not formally relied on s30 FOIA (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) or s31 FOIA (law enforcement). NYP explained that s31 FOIA had not been considered as an exemption because:

“The investigation was closed and was in the end cited as a civil matter, therefore s30 was not considered.” b. The Commissioner noted that NYP had provided the Commissioner with emails from the Council to NYP whereas the Request sought copies of correspondence sent by NYP to the Council during 2023. The Commissioner asked whether NYP wished those emails to be considered. NYP said that the emails had been provided for context “but as the FOI request specifically relates to ‘during 2023’ then only the emails that would be considered for the request would be those sent in 2023. This is the only correspondence that was identified by the Officers involved in the case matter.” c. The Commissioner asked whether NYP held an investigation report (referenced in the second part of the Request), what searches NYP had undertaken for such a report and what rationale NYP offered to explain why no such report would exist. NYP said “We hold a police report and officer logs, which details actions, contact with suspects or victims and information regarding decisions made when finalising any matters. These are the 2 main documents that are created when any individual reports an incident to the Police. They are not specifically titled ‘investigation’ report, but a police report/record of the crime/incident that has been provided by the member of public.”

[12]On 1 May 2024, the Commissioner advised NYP that he considered that the police report and officer logs NYP had referred to were likely to fall within scope of the Request. He asked for copies, and, if NYP accepted that the information was in scope of the Request, for NYP to explain why the information was fully exempt from disclosure.

[13]It appears that the Commissioner then spoke directly to NYP, the result being an email from the Commissioner to NYP dated 1 May 2024, in which the Commissioner advised this:

“As discussed, it would appear that either section 30 or 31 of FOIA would be more appropriate in the circumstances of this case. This is because the concerns relate largely to the impact of disclosure to the public of a matter that was passed to yourselves for investigation, A member of the public would not expect you to divulge details of any such investigation and how matters progressed by way of a FOIA response. Such a disclosure could have an impact on the perceptions of the public and their willingness to report matters to yourselves. Any reluctance by the public to contact the police when they have concerns would clearly not be in the best public interest.”

The Commissioner set out the issues NYP would need to address in respect of the application of either s30 or 31 FOIA.

[14]On 20 May 2024, NYP responded, in summary, as follows:a. NYP provided information which is redacted in the copy of NYP’s letter of 20 May 2024 in the OPEN hearing bundle, but which we have seen in CLOSED material and set out in our CLOSED judgment.

b. NYP confirmed that the reported matter “was recorded under Stalking / Harassment, which is a criminal offence, and the information provided was being reviewed to see whether the information provided, by the reporting person, amounted to Stalking and Harassment and whether any charges should be made. The incident logs and emails refer to this investigation and provides information regarding the harassments put forward by members of the Potto Parish Council.”

c. The Appellant has a personal interest in the matter.

d. The investigation was complete at the time of the Request:

“The FOI request was submitted on 23 September 2023. The case matter was concluded, and the Victim updated on the 17 April 2023 stating that the case was not being investigated. [NYP’s emphasis in bold].” e. NYP had resolved that it was relying on s31 FOIA to withhold the requested information. f. The emails the Council had sent to NYP in 2023 would not fall within scope of the Request because the Request was for correspondence sent by NYP to the Council during 2023. g. As regards the Appellant’s request for the NYP investigation report, “such information is provided within the crime report/log.”

The Decision Notice

[15]On 10 June 2024, the Commissioner issued the Decision Notice. He decided that:a. The withheld information related to a matter reported to NYP for consideration as to whether a crime had been committed. The withheld information relates to NYP’s investigation and provides details about the matters being considered. The allegation was criminal in nature and NYP’s arguments reflect matters that relate to the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

b. The Commissioner was satisfied that disclosure of the withheld information: would allow interested parties to build up a picture of events; would be of interest to those who were the alleged offender/s and could assist them in planning or continuing their activities in the future; and could reveal information which could also have a wider law enforcement impact because it could be used to ascertain the parameters needed to establish whether or not a crime had been committed.

c. The Commissioner's view was that it was likely that disclosure would be likely to cause such prejudice.

d. Sections 31(1)(a) and (b) FOIA were engaged.

e. In considering whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure, the Commissioner identified the following matters in favour of disclosure: i. Transparency in policing investigations; disclosure may provide assurance that NYP is dealing appropriately with reports of stalking and harassment. ii. Transparency about decisions about the thresholds required in determining whether something should, or could, be further investigated.

f. The Commissioner identified the following matters in favour of maintaining the exemption: i. The appropriate weight to be afforded to the public interest inherent in the exemption: the public interest in avoiding likely prejudice to law enforcement matters, specifically in avoiding prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, both in this specific case and in future cases. ii. That disclosure of the withheld information under FOIA is effectively disclosure to the world at large, with no onward restrictions on how the information may be used. iii. On balance, the Commissioner was satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. iv. NYP was entitled to rely on s31(1)(a) and (b) FOIA to withhold the requested information. v. The Commissioner did not, therefore, consider it necessary to consider NYP’s reliance on s40(2) FOIA. The Appeal

[16]The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 16 July 2024. He required further time to articulate his grounds of appeal. Those were provided on 29 October 2024.

[17]The Appellant submits, in summary, as follows:a. The Decision Notice proceeded by reference to NYP’s investigation of the Council’s allegations against the Appellant made to NYP in 2022, whereas the Request related to NYP’s response to the Council’s “input to NYP” in 2023.

b. In January 2023, the Council resolved to send all correspondence it was receiving from parishioners about its financial governance to NYP, asserting that the correspondence, and, in some cases, the sender, were acting to cause harassment, exhibited vexatious behaviour and were “stalking”.

c. The Request related to correspondence NYP had sent the Council in 2023 about the minute items specified in the Request. The motive of the Request was to reassure the public (and the Appellant) that NYP was not to going to investigate the Council’s correspondence, as it is not a crime for the public to contact or complain about their local Council.

d. During the Commissioner’s investigations, NYP had elected to rely on s31(1)(a) and (b) FOIA instead of s40(2) FOIA.

e. The material which NYP described itself to the Commissioner as holding does not, in fact, relate to the Request, but to NYP’s investigations of allegations made by the Council about the Appellant in 2022.

[18]By way of outcome of his appeal, the Appellant asks the Tribunal to direct the Commissioner to require NYP:a. To conduct a fresh search for information responsive to the Request.

b. To conduct a fresh search for responsive information sent by NYP to the Council after the date of the Request, thereby effectively extending the date range of the Request.

c. To issue a fresh response which does not rely on s14 FOIA.

d. To address an outstanding data subject access request dated 21 November 2023 (“the DSAR”).

e. To confirm the outcome of any investigation conducted by NYP into allegations of stalking and harassment made by the Council against the Appellant in 2022, in line with NYP’s obligations pursuant to the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 (“CPIA”). The Commissioner’s Response to

The Appeal

[19]By Response to the appeal dated 24 December 2024, the Commissioner submits simply that the Grounds of Appeal “can briefly be summarised by being about Potto Parish Council and querying what information is held by NYP rather than being about whether s31 is engaged, or the public interest balance.” The Commissioner did not comment on the Appellant’s submission that the Decision Notice in error addressed matters and events arising in 2022, rather than correspondence from NYP to the Council in 2023, which is the subject of the Request. NYP’s Response to the appeal

[20]By response to the appeal dated 11 April 2025, NYP submitted, in summary:a. It wishes to take a neutral stance in the appeal.

b. It does not intend to provide detailed submissions or a chronology as it anticipates that the Commissioner will address those.

c. It does, however, provide the following information: i. The Appellant states that he believes further correspondence was exchanged between NYP and the Council after February 2023. That is incorrect: no correspondence was exchanged after February 2023. ii. NYP has responded to the DSAR. iii. NYP has not breached CPIA by not informing the Appellant that it was investigating him for stalking and harassment. Rather, following a complaint, the matter was closed and no crime recorded. iv. As regards the Appellant’s assertion that he is a victim of harassment and that he has not received a formal update from NYP in connection with that, no crime of harassment has, in fact, been recorded. v. As regards the Appellant’s assertion that NYP has not responded properly to FOIA requests and is purposefully not being accountable to the public, NYP’s records show that the Appellant has submitted two FOIA requests in 2023, and NYP has responded to both. The Appellant’s Reply to

NYP’s Response to the appeal

[21]By Reply to NYP’s Response, dated 4 May 2025, the Appellant submits, in summary:a. NYP’s Response is provided following scrutiny of its records in relation to the Council’s allegations of stalking and harassment against the Appellant made in 2022, whereas the Request relates to any correspondence sent by NYP to the Council in the first half of 2023, following the Council sending electors’ correspondence to NYP in the first half of 2023. Accordingly, it is not clear whether NYP’s confirmation that it has not exchanged further correspondence with the Council after February 2023 relates to the 2022 or 2023 matters. The Appellant suspects that NYP’s confirmation relates to the 2022 matters. NYP has chosen not to clarify the position.

b. The Appellant accepts that NYP has responded to the DSAR but wishes to understand why NYP’s response did not refer to stalking.

c. While the Appellant is relieved to read NYP’s information concerning the stalking and harassment allegations made against the Appellant, he asks the Tribunal to note the dichotomy between NYP’s confirmation that the matter is closed and the Council’s assertion that “these investigations are currently ongoing with NYP...”. Both NYP and the Council should provide transparent information about matters and comply with FOIA, which is the purpose of the appeal.

d. NYP’s confirmation that the Appellant has made only two FOIA requests and one subject access request indicate that a threat made by NYP to rely on s14(1) FOIA (vexatious request) is unjustified.

e. The effect of NYP and Commissioner proceeding to respond to the appeal by reference to the 2022 matters rather than the 2023 matters is that NYP has yet to address the Request.

Applicable law

[22]The relevant provisions of FOIA are as follows: General right of access to information held by public authorities(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled— (a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and (b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.

(2) Subsection (1) has effect subject to the following provisions of this section and to the provisions of sections 2,9, 12 and 14. (3). Where a public authority- (a) reasonably requires further information in order to identify and locate the information requested, and (b) has informed the applicant of that requirement, the authority is not obliged to comply with subsection (1) unless it is supplied with that further information. Section 58 Determination of appeals (1) If on an appeal under section 57 the Tribunal considers- (a) that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law, or (b) to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner, that he ought to have exercised his discretion differently, the Tribunal shall allow the appeal or substitute such other notice as could have been served by the Commissioner; and in any other case the Tribunal shall dismiss the appeal. (2) On such an appeal, the Tribunal may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based.

[23]The import of section 58 FOIA is that the right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal involves a full merits consideration of whether, on the facts and the law, the public authority’s response to a FOIA request is in accordance with Part 1 of FOIA (Information Commissioner v Malnick and ACOBA

[2018] UKUT 72 (AAC)

; [2018] AACR 29, at paragraphs [45]-[46] and [90].

[24]The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to determine whether the Decision Notice is in accordance with the law.

[25]It is not open to the Tribunal, as the Appellant seeks, to direct: an extension to the date range of the Request; a prohibition on whether NYP may rely on s14 FOIA; that NYP should respond to the Appellant's DSAR in any particular way; or that NYP should confirm the outcome of any investigation conducted by NYP into allegations of stalking and harassment made by the Council against the Appellant. We do not, therefore, address those matters further.

Analysis

[26]We had before us an OPEN hearing bundle, and a CLOSED hearing bundle, containing withheld information.

[27]After our initial deliberation, we directed the provision of further information from the Commissioner and NYP to enable us to form a complete picture of relevant matters. That information was provided to us on the basis that it should be held pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Rules, namely that it should not be disclosed to any person other than the Commissioner and the Tribunal.

The scope of the Request

[28]We start by identifying the scope of the Request.

[29]We consider that the natural and ordinary meaning of the Request is that the Appellant is asking for copies of correspondence from NYP to the Council during 2023 relating to emails and information sent by a person or persons to the parishioners or the Council in January, February, March, April and May 2023 which the Council forwarded on to NYP in those months, and which were then the subject of investigation by NYP.

[30]The Request is made expressly by reference to the Council’s agenda items which we have set out above. We consider that the natural and ordinary meaning of the wording of those agenda items is that in each of the months identified, the Council has received the communication described.

[31]The wording of the agenda items indicates a cursive process of emails or information received by the Council in January, February, March, April and May 2023, which the Council then sent on to NYP contemporaneously or near-contemporaneously with their receipt by the Council. In our view, the wording clearly suggests that those emails or information are then the subject of investigation by NYP, that is to say again contemporaneously or near-contemporaneously with their receipt by NYP.

[32]The question to which NYP had to address itself, therefore, was what correspondence from NYP to the Council was held by NYP relating to the emails and information sent by the Council to NYP in January, February, March, April and May 2023 referred to in the Council agenda items.

[33]In order to determine whether NYP addressed itself to the correct question, and, consequently, the lawfulness of its response to the Request, we have reviewed and analysed in CLOSED the information in the CLOSED bundle, and the further material provided to us by NYP in CLOSED.

[34]For the reasons given in CLOSED, we find that NYP failed to respond to the Request, properly construed, in breach of its obligations pursuant to s1 FOIA.

[35]Accordingly, we find that the Commissioner erred in deciding that NYP was entitled to rely on s31(1)(a) and (b) FOIA in responding to the Request.

[36]To that extent, the Decision Notice is not in accordance with the law.

Conclusion

[37]NYP must undertake a fresh search responsive to the Request and issue a fresh response compliant with FOIA. That response may be neither to confirm nor deny that any responsive information is held, or to deny that any responsive information is held, or to confirm that such information is held and to disclose it or to state any exemption from disclosure under FOIA on which it relies.

[38]The appeal must be Allowed. Signed: Judge Foss Dated: 21 November 2025