Derek Speight v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2025] UKFTT 534 (GRC)

[2025] UKFTT 00534 (GRC)
First-Tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Information Rights
DEREK SPEIGHTAppellant:THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONERFirst Respondent:THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SUSSEX POLICESecond Respondent:Date and type of Hearing: 14 October 2024, 01 July 2024, 09 April and 09 May 2025.Decision on: 12 May 2025.Decision Given on: 02 June 2025Panel: Brian Kennedy KC with Panel Specialists Anne Chafer & David Cook.Represnetation:
Between
DEREK SPEIGHTAppellantTHE INFORMATION COMMISSIONERRespondentTHE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE SUSSEX POLICERespondentDate and type of Hearing: 14 October 2024, 01 July 2024, 09 April and 09 May 2025.RespondentThe Appellant: As a litigant in Person. for in personThe First Respondent: Written submissions from Gemma Garvey, Legal Executive of the ICO.The Second Respondent: Kyle Fournillier of Counsel.Result: The Tribunal allow the Appeal.Substituted Decision Notice: The Second Respondent (the Sussex Police) disclose the withheld information; the subject of the Appellant’s request should be disclosed to the Appellant within 28 days of the date of this Judgment.REASONSDate 2025-05-13

Introduction:

[1]This decision follows deliberations by the Tribunal subsequent to previous hearings and adjournments with Interim decsisons and Case Management Directions (“CMDs”) on various dates with full background details and reasons on each occasion.[2]The Tribunal sat on 14 October 2024 to deliberate on the outcome having considered the evidence and submissions resulting from CMDs previously issued. Inter-alia, the function of the FTT is to hold an investigative hearing afresh, and to identify the material issues pertaining. Any such investigation that unfolds relevant material evidence, or otherwise upsets the Commissioner’s Decision Notice (“DN”) under appeal is not a criticism of the Commissioner’s investigation but part of the intended search for a fair and proper outcome of the appeal.[3]The Case Management Directions issued by the Tribunal on 1 July 2024 were accompanied by a full explanation of the Tribunal's understanding of the arguments raised in the matter and the reasons for requesting the parties provide it with further evidence, which ultimately allowed the Tribunal to reach a definitive, fair and proportionate Judgment.[4]In response to the various Case Management Directions, the Tribunal was provided with a further bundle of submissions that sought to engage with the unfolding issues. Points of considerable importance had arisen and in the view of the Tribunal the position of the parties unfortunately had not been fully articulated. The Tribunal wanted to ensure, in the interests of justice and in fairness to the parties, that it was furnished with a clear exposition of the position of each respective party in relation to the very germane points that have been raised throughout.[5]The Commissioner had initially agreed with and supported the position put forward by the Second Respondent (“The Police”) that this was a matter in which section 40(2) of FOIA applied and that:(a) the requested information is exempt from disclosure as it constitutes the personal data of an individual other than the requester; and(b) the disclosure of the information to the world at large would contravene the data protection principles.[6]However in light of further evidence exposed through the appeal process, by email of 16:05 on 26 September 2024, Ms Gemma Garvey on behalf of the First Respondent indicated a change in position in the following terms; “In NHS Business Services Authority v Information Commissioner and Spivack [2021] UKUT 192 (AAC), at paragraph 37 the Upper Tribunal (UT) (“Spivac”) concluded that “The legislation provides that actual identification is necessary in order for data to be personal data”. Based on this UT decision, the Chief Constable of Sussex Police (the “Police”) would need to show that people can be identified with a degree of certainty at the relevant time. In deciding if actual identification is possible, the Police would need to evidence what additional information exists which – combined with the withheld information – would allow a motivated intruder to achieve re-identification (that is how it would enable a motivated intruder to link specific living individuals to the data). The IC does not consider that the Police response and supplementary bundle establishes a direct link in this case. On this basis the Commissioner no longer seeks to defend the Decision Notice under appeal.”

A brief Summary of the Request & the Decision Notice:

[7]The Appellant wrote to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police (the Police) on 20 October 2022 and requested the following information: “1. For January to December 2021 how many Reports were received by Crackdown for "Parking on Zig-zag Lines" at the pedestrian crossing in Buxted. a)For these reports how many motorists received an Advisory Letter for Unnecessary Obstruction"? b)How many reports were "Retained for intelligence"? Unnecessary Obstruction, and how many of those reports were retained for intelligence. Mr Speight has requested the report numbers for those retained and has been informed that to provide that information would allow for the possibility of individuals being identified. c)Please provide the Report Number for the ones retained" 2. From January 2022 to date how many Reports were received by Crackdown for "Parking on Zig-zag Lines" at the pedestrian crossing in Buxted. a) For these reports how many motorists received an Advisory Letter for "Unnecessary Obstruction"? b) How many reports were "Retained for intelligence"? c) Please provide the Report Number for the ones retained 3. I would like to know who is responsible for the policy decision that prevents Crackdown, SSRP, and Sussex Police from taking any action against the motorists who continue to park on the above zig-zags. Please provide a copy of this policy which they refer to.” a)For these reports how many motorists received an Advisory Letter for Unnecessary Obstruction"? c)Please provide the Report Number for the ones retained"

a)For these reports how many motorists received an Advisory Letter for Unnecessary Obstruction"?

[8]On 19 April 2023 the Police responded. It confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request however it withheld the information requested at parts 1(c) and 2(c) citing section 40(2) FOIA (third party personal data).On 20 April 2023 the Appellant asked Sussex Police for an internal review.[9]On 9 August 2023 the Police provided its review response which upheld its application of section 40(2) FOIA to parts 1(c) and 2(c) of the request.[10]On 11 August 2023 the Appellant complained to the Commissioner about the way his FOIA request had been handled, in particular he disputed the application of section 40(2) FOIA to withhold the information requested at parts 1(c) and 2(c).[11]The Commissioner considered that the scope of his investigation was to establish whether the Police had correctly relied upon section 40(2) FOIA in relation to parts 1(c) and 2(c) of the request. The Commissioner considered the Appellant’s complaint and the submissions made by the Police and, in the DN under appeal, decided that the Police were correct to rely upon section 40(2) FOIA in respect of parts 1(c) and 2(c) of the request.

The Grounds of Appeal:

[12]The Appellant submitted in comprehensive and compelling detail that the withheld information is not personal data as he asserts disclosure into the public domain would not enable individuals to be identified. He has provided supporting evidence including screenshots of the “Crackdown database” supporting his position.

The Commissioner’s Final Response:

[13]The Commissioner (in his Final Response pages 7 – 17 dated 30 October 2024) no longer accepts that the withheld information is personal data in line with his non -statutory guidance on the application of section 40 FOIA and in particular ‘Part 1 – Is the request for personal data?’: The Commissioner has provided comprehensive analysis and reasoning therein on the applicable law pertaining to s40(2) FOIA, DPA, UK GDPR and all relevant legislation and authorities which have a bearing on the issues herein and the Tribunal accept and adopt these most helpful submissions.[14]Based on the Upper Tribunal decision in “Spivac” (see para. 6 above), the Police, as Second Respondent, would need to establish that individuals can be identified with a degree of certainty at the relevant time. In deciding if actual identification is possible, it would need to evidence what additional information exists which – combined with the withheld information – would allow a “motivated intruder” to achieve re-identification (that is how it would enable a motivated intruder to link specific living individuals to the data).[15]The Commissioner does not consider that the Responses and supplementary bundle provided by the Second Respondent establishes such a link in this case.[16]The Commissioner acknowledges that the Second Respondent submits that the Appellant has kept records of registration numbers and that he would be able to link the withheld information with his own records to identify individuals. Noting the authority cited in Spivac, it has not however sufficiently explained how this would occur. It has also argued that the withheld information could be used by the Appellant to establish whether a report was retained for intelligence purposes. It is not however clear how this would be possible if the Appellant had not submitted the report himself. If the Appellant has submitted the report himself, disclosure would not provide him with any further information not already in his possession.[17]On this basis the Commissioner no longer seeks to defend the DN under appeal.[18]Additionally, in relation to paragraphs 64 and 65 of the Tribunals’ first adjournment decision herein, the Commisioner would resist the argument that the risk of self-identification prevents a disclosure under section 40(3A) FOIA of information which does not lead to those people being identified by a member of the public, thereby making the information anonymous in the hands of third parties.[19]In the event the withheld information is deemed to constitute personal data because someone could self-identify, the relevant test under section 40(3A) is whether the processing (that is disclosure into the public domain) would contravene the data protection principles. If the person who is the subject of a report can self-identify and learn something new but no one else can identify them, the Commissioner submits that their own data protection rights would not have been infringed by the relevant processing, thereby leading to a breach of the Data Protection Principles.[20]What could be relevant, instead, the Commissioner argues, is the third condition in section 40(2)(4A) FOIA. If the person who is the subject of a report can self-identify and it’s accepted it’s their personal data, they would have a right to that information under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) unless a relevant DPA exemption applied to the right of access. This would potentially make the information exempt under section 40(2). This was not an argument presented by Sussex Police and was not therefore considered in the Commissioner’s DN.[21]For completeness the Commissioner reiterates that he does not now consider the withheld information to be personal data. (The Tribunal accept and adopt the Commissioners position and reasoning which is set out in a comprehensive analysis at pages 7 - 16 of the Supplmentaruy Open Bundle herein).[22]Finally, the Commissioner submits that the Second Respondent will be placed best to assist the Tribunal in relation to the issues raised at paragraph 14 of the Tribunals’ second adjournment and Interim decision herein.

The Second Respondent’s Response:

[23]The Police have had sight of the Commissioners’ Final Response and is in agreement with the applicable law as set out therein (see paragraphs 13 - 17 above) and do not wish to add anything further at this stage in this aspect of the appeal. However the Police are of the firm view that the Appellant collects/has collected his own data which, if matched against the Unique Reference Number (“URN”) of particular reports, can and will lead to the identification of specific individuals. Most relevant in this regard, the Police argue, is the evidenced call logs where the Appellant has confirmed that he has retained photographs of particular vehicles and frequently makes searches against the records of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (“DVLA”) for information on vehicles such as MOT and insurance.[24]The Police wish to highlight a further risk in that, if any individuals were to be identified by the Appellant, given his past and continuing behaviour towards the Police and its operations, the Appellant is likely to visit such behaviours upon individual members of the public within Buxted.[25]The additional information consists of information (including, but not limited to, dates, times, photographs, vehicle registration marks etc) which has been collected by the Appellant over a number of years which have then formed the basis for numerous Operation Crackdown records/reports.[26]The Police have provided submissions in support of their application of section 40(2) FOIA along with supporting documents and has subsequently confirmed that; “Article 4 of GDPR states that it is personal data if a person “can” be identified directly or indirectly and any person who is the subject of a report of crime has the expectation that their personal data will not be disclosed into the public domain”.[27]The Police hold evidence that the Appellant possesses data which they argue, when compared to the Operation Crackdown records, will allow him to link vehicles (and therefore their owners) to specific infractions where the Appellant has been informed of how many reports were received by Operation Crackdown for parking on zig-zag lines at the pedestrian crossing in Buxted. He has also been told how many motorists received an Advisory Letter for Unnecessary Obstruction, and how many of those reports were retained for intelligence. The Appellant has requested the report numbers for those retained and has been informed that to provide that information would allow for the possibility of individuals being identified. Sussex Police remain of the view that disclosure of the report numbers (“The withheld information”), combined with local knowledge or publicly available information, would make the drivers who were the subject of those reports identifiable. As such, the Police argue this information is personal data. The only value of this information to the Appellant is to use that information to identify whether the information about the drivers reported to the police for an alleged parking offence has been retained for intelligence purposes.[28]The Appellant has retained his own records, referring to specific vehicle registration numbers. The Police “ - - are of the view that the Appellant intends to link any report numbers to his own records to be able to identify the drivers.”[29]The Police set out their position on this by way of email of 15:42 on 7 October 2024 from Amy Olive of Weightmans LLP as follows; “We write to confirm on behalf of Sussex Police that their stance is unaltered. Article 4 of GDPR states that it is personal data if a person “can” be identified directly or indirectly. Any person who is the subject of a report of crime has the expectation that their personal data will not be disclosed into the public domain. Sussex Police hold evidence that Mr Speight possesses data which, when compared to the Operation Crackdown records, will allow him to link vehicles (and therefore their owners) to specific infractions. Mr Speight has been informed of how many reports were received by Operation Crackdown for parking on zigzag lines at the pedestrian crossing in Buxted. He has also been told how many motorists received an Advisory Letter for Unnecessary Obstruction, and how many of those reports were retained for intelligence. Mr Speight has requested the report numbers for those retained and has been informed that to provide that information would allow for the possibility of individuals being identified. Sussex Police remain of the view that disclosure of the report numbers, combined with local knowledge or publicly available information, would make the drivers who were the subject of those reports identifiable. As such, this information is personal data. The only value of this information to Mr Speight is to use that information to identify whether the information about the drivers reported to the police for an alleged parking offence has been retained for intelligence purposes. Mr Speight has retained his own records, referring to specific vehicle registration numbers. Sussex Police are of the view that Mr Speight intends to link any report numbers to his own records to be able to identify the drivers.”[30]The Police, as Second Respondent, has simply reiterated the position set out in its initial submissions. It does not appear to have turned its mind to the specific submission made by the Commissioner as articulated in the email of 16:05 on 26 September 2024 or, indeed, stated anything new or that could assist the Tribunal in its consideration of this point.[31]The Appellant remains dissatisfied and has made detailed submissions to the Tribunal to that effect (see below).[32]The original reply from the Police dated 19/04/2023 OB pg 43 – 45 states ‘... if a report has been made by yourself and Sussex Police confirmed that this same report had been retained for intelligence purposes, you are likely to be in possession of other identifiable information which together, would breach the rights set out in the Data Protection Act 2018.’[33]As stated above, following receipt of the witness statement from T/PS EA654 James Arrol-Barker, the Commissioner revised his position in the light of the further information and evidence that has been presented during the course of this appeal and he no longer accepts that the withheld information is personal data in line with his guidance on the application of S40 FOIA. He specifically references NHS Business Services Authority v Information Commissioner and Spivac [2021] UKUT 192 (AAC) which concluded that:
‘The legislation provides the actual identification is necessary in order for data to be personal data.’
The Commissioner pointed out that the Second Respondent would need to evidence the additional information that exists which – combined with the withheld information – would allow a motivated intruder to achieve reidentification and that he did not consider that the Second Respondents’ response and supplementary bundle establishes a direct link in this case.[34]The subsequent correspondence from the Second Respondent has not provided any additional material evidence to the Tribunal to address this matter.[35]Following on from the witness statement and the useful screen shots, the Tribunal had some additional queries about the information which is given to each person who has reported an anti-social driving incident. Annex A Open Bundle page A57. A tribunal queries raised was whether, in the subject line of the email, the reference number used is the same as the report number would have been for that report? It was also asked whether the case reference number in the first sentence of the letter was the same as the report number would have been for that report?[36]At Annex B. Open Bundle page A58 - is a screen shot of the section of the Operation Crackdown database which encourages a person reporting to check the progress of a report they have made previously. The Tribunal raised queries and the witness responded in the afffiramative as follows; “Exhibit - A57 Q.In the subject line of the email, is the reference number the same number as the report number would have been for that report? – A. Yes “IQ. s the case reference number in the first sentence of the letter the same number as the report number would have been for that report? – A. Yes Exhibit – 58 Q. Is the case number in the first yellow box the same number as the report number would have been for that report? - Yes Is the case ID the same number as the report number would have been for that report? – A. Yes[37]Tribunal also Query:
“Is the Case Id contained in the Status report – in this example 1214482 - the same number as the report number would have been for that report”? A. In this instance, the person reporting is informed that: “This report has been set (sic) to prosecution. This means that the driver will be offered a retraining course, given conditional points and fine offer or sent to court.”
. The Tribunal considered that this falls within the special category of personal data and required an explanation as to how the disclosure of this information is less sensitive than providing a reference number which will indicate that the details of the report will be kept on file for intelligence purposes.

The Appellant’s Submissions:

[38]The Appellant’s extensive, comprehensive and helpful submissions can be paraphrased as follows: “Despite all the "evidence" provided by Sussex Police, I maintain I will not be able to see any vehicle or motorists' data from the retained reports when doing a Crackdown inquiry or from any other source. I have shown in my final submissions that Sussex Police have made unsubstantiated claims without providing any evidence of how I can do the things they say I will. I asked for an example of a registration number (1st and last digit) and the name of a motorist (first and last letter) to be shown to the tribunal as proof that these details can be found from a retained report number. “Not surprisingly, this proof has not been forthcoming. It is clearly shown in the screenshots I have provided. that all I and anyone else will get is an error message. Every claim Sussex Police make is dependent on me having a registration number or a motorist's details. ICO asked how I would do that, and so do I”. “The only reason for asking for the retained report numbers is to email Crackdown and request that they review the status of "retained" for these reports and send an advisory letter. Even if they do send an advisory letter, they will not tell me they have done it and will not provide me with any details of the vehicle or the motorist. The inquiry error message will still be displayed. An advisory letter may prevent reoffending, even if it is one for "unnecessary obstruction" without any reference to the actual more serious offence they have committed. I have never asked Crackdown or Sussex Police for any details of the motorist I have reported. The Local Policing plan aims to stop dangerous and anti-social motoring. I have done my bit as requested. Crackdown and Sussex Police are failing to do theirs.” “Sussex Police maintain I will be able to use the reporting information I have retained and somehow link that to the retained report numbers.” “This is the secure link to my data that Sussex Police are referring to. I did ask Sussex Police to please explain in detail with text and screenshots how I can use this data rather than making up these unfounded claims about what they claim I will do with it ?” https://photos.app.goo.gl/Yd8hRPfZjrNaoHNT7 “How do I link to something I have retained if I haven't got the registration number from an inquiry ? Do I just guess that it must be one of the motorists I have already reported ? I don't know the motorist. Nearly all my reports have "unseen" for identifying the motorists. That's because they are in the shop and not in the vehicle.” “Likely to be local residents. Did (the Police) check with Crackdown to see where the motorists lived before making this claim ? Again, no evidence was provided. Just speculation.” “Redacted data. Who provided the Commissioner with this information and how was it obtained ?” “Of V888. I have never used it and wouldn't be able to because it needs a registration number. Did the Police check with DVLA whether I had made any V888 requests ? I cannot see how to make an insurance query on the DVLA website. I expect Sussex Police to respond to the Crackdown reports. I have no wish to know who the motorist is after I have made my report.” “Retained reports and the 3000 residents. The only way I would find their details is if I knock on each door and asked if they had parked on the zigzags of the pedestrian crossing but did not receive an Advisory Letter from Crackdown. There is no way of knowing who the motorists are or where they live from a retained report number. It is unlikely they would provide a name !” “MOT. The only reason I kept checking with the DVLA was that I had seen the vehicle again and was hoping it was now legal. Sussex Police didn't appear to care that a potentially dangerous vehicle was still being driven.” https://photos.app.goo.gl/Yd8hRPfZjrNaoHNT7

Discussion:

[39]The Tribunbal welcome, accept and adopt the detailed comprehensive submissions as set out in the Commissioners’ Final Response dated 30 October 2024 commencing at page 16 of the Supplementary Hearing Bundle before us. The Second Respondent have also acknowledged and accepted the legal position set out therein.[40]The issue then for the Tribunal is whether or not there is any possible breach of data protection by the release of the “withheld information” – the subject of the Appellant’s request.

Conclusion:

[41]The Tribunal accept the Appellants submission’s and reasons on this and find that we cannot identify any risk of identifying, with any certainty or at all, the identity of a living person from disclosure of the withheld information; whether it be the registered keeper or other the driver of a motor vehicle at the material time or indeed otherwise.[42]The understandable concern about the potential of harassment being caused by the Appellant or any person in his position is not a matter for this Tribunal and would no doubt be dealt with in the usual manner, after an appropriate investigation on facts relating to actual, rather than perceived, harassment or other criminal activity. A request under FOIA is motive blind, however, on the evidence before, us this Panel have no reservations about the Appellant’s bona fides and do not perceive any mal-intent in his modus operandi.[43]The Tribunal have received copies of screen shots from the Police which show that, when a person has submitted a report to the Operation Crackdown database, that person receives a letter from Operation Crackdown which contains a reference number (Supplementary Open Hearing Bundle pg A57) and explains how ‘You can check the status of your report by using the report/case reference number provided to you and going to “Check progress” within the Anti-Social driving system’. Pg 58 demonstrates an example of this screen shot which provides the case reference number and the status which, in this example, is ‘This report has been sent to prosecution’. The Appellant also provided a screenshot which is in the Open Bundle A19 in which the Status is ‘An advisory letter has been sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle’. The status will include those ‘Retained for Intelligence’ which is referred to in the letter at OB A57 as ‘The incident is being kept on record for 12 months’.[44]The evidence we have received from both parties and confirmed during the hearing makes it clear that it is only the person reporting an incident via the Crackdown database who will receive this information. An enquiry regarding another report number sent from an email address which was not the submitting email address for this report receives the response ‘Sorry no Incidents have been returned with that number’ OB A19.[45]If the list of report/case reference numbers which have been requested are disclosed to the Appellant, they could only fall into two categories as far as the Appellant is concerned. Category one would be the report/case reference numbers which the Appellant will already have if they are the outcome of reports that he has submitted to the Crackdown database and the Appellant will already have access to the status and can check that status. Category two would be those report/case reference numbers which the Appellant did not submit and will not be able to check as his email address will be different to the one used to submit the report and the response will be ‘Sorry no Incidents have been returned with that number’ ( See Open Bundle A19).[46]Any category one report/case reference numbers will therefore only be disclosing information to the Appellant that has already been disclosed to him by the Crackdown system in any event. For any other person, that information will fall into category two and the Tribunal cannot see how any personal data relating to report/case reference numbers falling into category two would be accessible by the Appellant or any other person.[47]In resisting this appeal, the Commissioner stated at paragraph 36 of his Response of 6 February 2024 that:
"Sussex Police has provided the Commissioner with a copy of the information being withheld under section 40(2) FOIA. However the Commissioner clarifies that the withheld information consists of report numbers only. The Commissioner has not had sight of the Operation Crackdown database details associated with the report numbers."
[48]The Tribunal does have the benefit of evidence submitted by the Appellant and so can see material and information of direct relevance. That additional evidence relates to the submissions made by the Commissioner and, of particular relevance, to paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Commissioners’ Response of 6 February 2024, which states as follows:
"Should the report reference numbers be disclosed into the public domain, the individual(s) who made the report would have knowledge of their report reference number and would then be aware that their particular report had been retained for intelligence purposes. The reporter will know the registration of the vehicle reported (as this is a mandatory requirement of Operation Crackdown) along with any other information they may have to assist in identifying the driver. Combined with knowledge of this very specific localised area, they are highly likely to be able to identity the driver whom they have reported and through disclosure of the information requested would then know whether their report against that driver had been retained. Remaining satisfied that the withheld information constitutes personal data, the Commissioner maintains that this information does not add any value to the Appellant in understanding the level of the violations of parking at this location (bearing in mind the other information that was disclosed in response to this request) and so any legitimate interest in disclosure does not outweigh the rights and freedoms of the data subject(s). The Commissioner therefore submits that section 40(2) FOIA was applied correctly by Sussex Police."
[49]The evidence provided by the Appellant - and specifically his emails of 16:07 on 9 January 2024 and of 12:17 on 8 February 2024 - clearly demonstrates that an individual that makes a report through the Operation Crackdown portal knows the case reference number and the email address used to make a report and so can view the status of the associated report, including whether an advisory letter has been sent or whether the details of the report have been retained in the database for intelligence.[50]The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the Commissioner's argument set out at paragraphs 40 and 41 (referred to at Para. 48 above) of his Response of 6 February 2024 does not lead to the conclusion that the Commissioner has reached. An individual who has made a report is able to access the case status information relating to his or her report already. Individuals other than those that originally made the reports in question would not be able to obtain the case status information merely by receiving the case reference numbers. In any event the Tribunal are not persuaded that such information does identify a particular living individual as “the Driver” as may have been assumed.[51]Further we find that publication of the withheld information does not allow any member of the public to access information that they could not already access previously. The test of relevance to the exemption under Section 40(2) of FOIA is therefore not satisfied and the exemption is not made out. We therefore allow the appeal in this respect.[52]It is a consequence of the operation of the portal provided for individuals to use under Operation Crackdown that members of the public armed with certain information can then obtain personal data about third parties. The Appellant in this matter is one such member of the public. Independent of this appeal, the Appellant can obtain some personal data about third parties from that portal, as can anybody else who possesses the requisite information to trigger those outcomes. The Tribunal find that information has not been demonstrated to definitively identify any particular living individual.[53]It therefore naturally follows that it is not a consequence of the granting of this appeal or the dismissal of this appeal that the Appellant should hold personal data about third parties. He is able to access and to hold that personal data, such as it is already. Putting it another way: the concerns raised by the police as to the possible consequences of the Appellant being provided with certain personal data is not one that depends on applications under FOIA or this appeal. On that basis, we do not and cannot accept the submissions of the police that, in summary, suggest that the impact on third parties is wholly dependent on the outcome of this appeal. We reject that submission and make a substituted decision.

Substituted Decision:

[54]The Tribunal allow the Appeal and direct that the Second Respondent, the Sussex Police, disclose the withheld information, the subject ot the Appellants request should be disclosed to the Appellant within 28 days of the date of this Judgment. Brian Kennedy KC 13 May 2025.