Mark Armstrong v The Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 1092 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 01092 (GRC)

Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0357

First-tier Tribunal

General Regulatory Chamber

Date 28 July 2026

Information Rights

Decided without a hearing

Before

TRIBUNAL JUDGE HAZEL OLIVER

TRIBUNAL MEMBER KATE GRIMLEY EVANS

TRIBUNAL MEMBER MARION SAUNDERS

Between

MARK ARMSTRONGAppellant

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONERRespondent

Decision: The appeal is Allowed in part.

Substituted Decision Notice:

The Chief Constable of Cleveland Constabulary (“Cleveland Police”) was not entitled to withhold the entirety of the requested information under section 31(1)(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”).

Cleveland Police was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) and section 40 FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. A redacted version of the information has already been provided to the Appellant by copy during these proceedings, and should now be disclosed to him under FOIA within 14 days from when this decision is sent to the parties.

Failure to comply may result in the Tribunal making written certification of this fact to the Upper Tribunal, in accordance with rule 7A of the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules, and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

REASONS

Background to Appeal

[1]This appeal is against a decision of the Information Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) dated 30 September 2025 (IC-370973-HOC8 the “Decision Notice”). The appeal relates to the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”). It concerns information about particular policies and procedures on sexual abuse investigations requested from the Chief Constable of Cleveland Constabulary (“Cleveland Police”).

[2]The parties opted for paper determination of the appeal. The Tribunal is satisfied that it can properly determine the issues without a hearing within rule 32(1)(b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (as amended). The Appellant confirmed in an email of 29 June 2026 that he is happy for a decision to be made on the paperwork and without a hearing.

[3]On 24 November 2024, the Appellant wrote to Cleveland Police and requested the following information (the “Request”), in the context of investigations into historic abuse at a named detention centre:

“Under the freedom of information act please provide me with your own policies and procedures regarding: 1. Vetting of all staff members 2. The training of staff members working on a child sex abuse investigation. 3. Your own policies and procedures regarding now a major investigation should be conducted.”

[4]Cleveland Police replied on 18 December 2024 and refused the Request under section 21 FOIA (information accessible by other means), and provided links to websites where policies and procedures are published.

[5]On the same day the Appellant replied and said he was clarifying the Request as follows:

“I am seeking all the policies, procedures and guidelines that you hold regarding how the Cleveland Police should conduct a non-recent child sexual abuse investigation. “Operation Hydrant is coordinating multiple non-recent child sexual abuse investigations around the country. Relevant investigations are those which involve either people of public prominence and/or abuse that has taken place in an institution. In most cases the victims are reporting abuse that took place when they were children. The Operation Hydrant team has created new guidance for investigators which replaces the 2020 Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) advice: Investigations into allegations of non-recent institutional child sexual abuse or child sexual abuse by people with a high public profile.”

See also: NPCC (2023) Practice Advice for Investigating Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation College of policing APP: Managing complex child abuse investigations How can Cleveland police staff carry out a effective and efficient major investigation if management do not pass on the correct guidance and procedures to follow. I believe that you do pass on this information by creating your own policies and procedures that adhere to any applicable guidelines.” See also: NPCC (2023) Practice Advice for Investigating Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation

College of policing APP: Managing complex child abuse investigations

[6]Cleveland Police replied on 17 January 2025. They confirmed that they manage all child abuse and complex child abuse cases following their Child Protection Guidance, and do not differentiate between recent and non-recent cases. They provided an extract from this guidance (as set out in the discussion below). They refused to provide the whole document under section 31(1)(a) and (b) FOIA (law enforcement – prevention and detection of crime, and apprehension or prosecution of offenders).

[7]The Appellant requested an internal review, which was dealt with after he had complained to the Commissioner. Cleveland Police maintained its position.

[8]The Appellant complained to the Commissioner on 17 March 2025. The Commissioner decided:a. Sections 31(1)(a) and (b) were engaged. Disclosure of the withheld information would allow interested parties to build up a picture of law enforcement practices, capabilities, tactics and strategy. It is also information that would be likely to assist those planning to commit crime or evade detection. He had received little evidence from Cleveland Police that this prejudice “would” occur, but accepted that it “would be likely” to cause this prejudice after considering the withheld information.

b. The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The interests in openness and transparency and accountability are outweighed by the paramount importance of public safety and the ability to deliver effective law enforcement.

The Appeal and Responses

[9]The Appellant appealed on 2 October 2025. His grounds of appeal are:a. The Commissioner’s assessment of likelihood of prejudice is flawed and not supported by sufficient evidence. He says that Cleveland Police’s argument was vague and generic, and they have failed to meet the initial burden of proof.

b. The Commissioner did not give adequate weight to the overwhelming public interest in transparency, accountability and restoring public confidence in the context of systemic child abuse, and the prejudice claimed is based on generic arguments and significantly less compelling for policies related to non-recent cases.

[10]The Commissioner’s response maintains that the Decision Notice was correct:a. It is difficult for a public authority to provide specific and clear evidence of a harm it is said will occur in the event of future disclosure, and his finding was based on scrutiny of the withheld information itself.

b. He accepted the public interest in openness and transparency, but for the reasons explained the test favoured non-disclosure. The Commissioner also referred to an email from the Appellant which refers to a different FOIA request. This was not part of the appeal and was not sent to the Tribunal, so we have not considered it in our decision.

Applicable law

[11]The relevant provisions of FOIA are as follows. 1 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]Effect of the exemptions in Part II. ……. (2) In respect of any information which is exempt information by virtue of any provision of Part II, section 1(1)(b) does not apply if or to the extent that—(a) the information is exempt information by virtue of a provision conferring absolute exemption, or

(b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. ……..

[31]Law enforcement.(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice— (a). the prevention or detection of crime, (b). the apprehension or prosecution of offenders… ……. 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.

[12]The approach to prejudice-based exemptions was set out in the First Tier Tribunal decision of Hogan v Information Commissioner [2011] 1 Info LR 588, as approved by the Court of Appeal in Department for Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner

[2017] 1 WLR 1

:a. Firstly the applicable interests within the relevant exemption must be identified.

b. Secondly the nature of the prejudice being claimed must be considered. It is for the decision maker to show that there is some causal relationship between the potential disclosure and the prejudice, and that the prejudice is “real, actual or of substance”.

c. Thirdly, the likelihood of occurrence of prejudice must be considered. Whether disclosure “would” cause prejudice is a question of whether this is more likely than not. To meet the lower threshold of “would be likely to” cause prejudice, the degree of risk must be such that there is a “real and significant risk” of prejudice, or there “may very well” be prejudice, even if this falls short of being more probable than not.

Issues and evidence

[13]The issues are:a. What are the applicable interests within the exemption, i.e. what is the actual harm relied on by Cleveland Police?

b. Is there a causal relationship between the disclosure and the prejudice, and is this real, actual or of substance?

c. Would disclosure cause this prejudice, or would it be likely to do so?

d. If section 31(1)(a) and/or (b) is engaged, in all the circumstances of the case, does the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information?

[14]By way of evidence and submissions we initially had the following, all of which we have taken into account in making our decision:a. An agreed bundle of open documents.

b. A closed bundle of documents containing the withheld information.

c. Written submission from the Appellant dated 17 January 2026.

[15]The Tribunal panel initially met to consider the appeal on 12 March 2026. We decided that we needed further information from Cleveland Police about their reasoning before finalising our decision. We sent directions on 13 March that Cleveland Police should answer the following questions:a. Does Cleveland Police accept that the withheld material is within scope of the Appellant’s requests dated 24 November and 18 December 2024?

b. What is the harm relied on by Cleveland Police in relation to disclosure of the withheld material?

c. In your reply to the requester dated 18 December 2024, you refused the request under section 21 and provided links to where policies and procedures are published. Please explain why you have concerns about the withheld information but those concerns do not apply to the policies and procedures in the public domain. Please explain why the withheld information requires a different approach.

d. What is the causal relationship between the disclosure of the withheld information and the prejudice relied on by Cleveland Police? Please explain, with reference to the content of the withheld information, why you say the information could be used by offenders to circumvent detection or otherwise be used in a way that would compromise law enforcement?

e. Please explain the basis for your position that disclosure of the withheld information “would” cause this prejudice.

f. Do the claimed exemptions apply to all of the withheld material? If not, can a redacted version be disclosed?

[16]Cleveland Police provided a reply on 1 April 2026, and the Appellant made representations in response on the same day. We address the reply and response, and what happened next, in the discussion below.

Discussion and Conclusions

[17]In accordance with section 58 of FOIA, our role is to consider whether the Commissioner’s Decision Notice was in accordance with the law or whether any discretion should have been exercised differently. As set out in section 58(2), we may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based. This means that we can review all of the evidence provided to us and make our own decision. We deal in turn with the issues.

[18]Cleveland Police provided the following extract in full to the Appellant:

“3.11.6. Adults Abused in Childhood In cases where an adult makes a non-recent allegation of abuse, which occurred in his/her childhood, police will typically undertake a single agency investigation. Safeguarding checks must be undertaken in respect of the suspect and their current situation in terms of contact with/access to children, and safety planning put in place to mitigate any risk if identified. This is a commonly missed practice to consider which often occurs when the victim indicates they currently have no contact with the suspect, who may have children of their own, work with children or have access to children through family and friends. Single agency investigation may not be appropriate in certain circumstances e.g. where the suspect: • Is a member of a child/young person’s household; • Is not a member of a child/young person’s household but has access to a child/young person in a family setting these include grandparents/aunt, uncle, or a family member who is/was caring for the child; • Is not a member of a child/young person’s household but has contact with children/young people by means of organised children’s group activities, e.g. as a voluntary group leader. The Police will refer any of the above exceptions to the relevant Children’s Services Department for consideration of single or joint investigation. A detailed PPN must be completed and submitted through the CRU for forwarding to CSC.”

[19]This is an extract from a much longer document, the Cleveland Police’s Child Protection Guidance (the “Guidance”). This document provides guidance on all allegations of abuse against children, not just historic allegations. The extract provided to the Appellant is the section that refers specifically to adults abused in childhood.

[20]We have considered whether the extract provided to the Appellant answers his Request, and whether the remainder of the Guidance is out of scope. The extract that has been provided is the only part of the Guidance that deals directly with what the Appellant asked about in his clarified request on 18 December 2024. However, Cleveland Police have said that the remainder of the Guidance as a whole covers many areas of investigation relating to child protection, and so at least some of the rest of the document would apply to historic allegations. We also note that the Appellant’s initial Request of 24 November 2024 asked for all policies and procedures on how a major investigation should be carried out, and the Guidance potentially falls within this. Cleveland Police’s answer to the Tribunal’s question on this point confirmed that they accept the withheld material falls within the scope of the material requested.

[21]The response to the Tribunal’s questions from Cleveland Police maintained that the claimed exemptions apply to the entirety of the document. They said that, apart from the extract that has been provided to the Appellant, “the remaining sections of the document consist almost entirely of operational methodologies, tactical guidance, risk assessments and investigative processes”, and so “cannot be meaningfully separated or redacted without removing the substance of the document or inadvertently exposing sensitive operational detail”. The Appellant’s response says that Cleveland Police have failed to provide a specific description of how disclosure of specific text would lead to the harms alleged. The Appellant says the information should be disclosed, or alternatively Cleveland Police should provide a redacted version.

[22]The Tribunal panel met again on 13 May 2026. We decided, having viewed the withheld information, that significant sections of the document seem to fall outside the harms claimed by Cleveland Police. We noted that the section that has already been disclosed to the Appellant (paragraph 3.11.6) contains information of a similar nature to other sections in the document. Although some sections do engage the harms set out in the response to our questions, others do not. We found that it would be possible to provide a redacted version of the withheld information without producing a meaningless document. We also noted that some of this information may already be in the public domain.

[23]We made directions that Cleveland Police should provide a redacted version of the withheld information, which only removes any information that they say falls within the claimed exemptions. Cleveland Police were also directed to provide a closed explanation to the Tribunal which explains the reason for redacting each individual paragraph and how the claimed exemption(s) apply to that paragraph, with specific reference to the content of that paragraph rather than generic overall statements.

[24]The Tribunal ordered a gist to be provided of the closed explanation, which is as follows:

“The redacted information refers mainly to information concerning how the police investigate potential suspects of child abuse. The information covers both current abuse and historical abuse. This includes operational details of the safeguarding process, the police protection process, processes for medical examinations of victims and investigative procedures when dealing with a potential suspect. Certain procedures have also been redacted such as the procedures in place which need to be followed when a child is missing from home, procedures to follow for peer-on peer abuse and the initial procedure to be followed by officers when a childcare concern is received by the force. If released into the public domain, this could assist criminals in circumventing detection and prosecution which would lead to the inevitable prejudice of law enforcement. Also redacted is tactical information about how Cleveland Police interact with third party agencies such as Local Authorities, health care providers and educators and how information is shared with these agencies in order to safeguard children and apprehend offenders. The subject of each section of the guidance has deliberately been left unredacted so that the appellant is aware of the subject of each section without the detailed risk management strategies and investigative techniques being disclosed. Of note, there are also some redactions which consist of external agency email addresses and telephone numbers which are not in the public domain and these are on pages 9, 11, 17, 22 and 31. The names of the police officers who have assisted in drafting the guidance have also been redacted from page 37.”

[25]The Tribunal is satisfied that this is an adequate and fair gist. The Appellant asked for a more detailed explanation, but it is not possible for the Appellant to be given a detailed explanation of exactly what information has been withheld, as this would reveal the content of the withheld information and so defeat the purpose of the appeal. The gist explains at a non-specific level what information has been redacted and why.

[26]The redacted version of the Child Protection Guidance that has been disclosed by Cleveland Police now reveals the majority of the information in the document. We have considered the unredacted version of this document together with the full closed explanation for these redactions.

[27]What are the applicable interests within the exemption, i.e. what is the actual harm relied on by Cleveland Police? The harm relied on is the impact on the ability of Cleveland Police to carry out its duties. Specifically, that disclosure of the withheld information would provide information that would assist offenders to avoid detection and apprehension, and so damage the ability of Cleveland Police to detect and prevent crime, including child abuse.

[28]Is there a causal relationship between the disclosure and the prejudice, and is this real, actual or of substance? Having seen the withheld information, we accept that there is a real causal relationship between the disclosure and the prejudice. We note that this applies to the information that is now being withheld, not the entire document. The withheld information contains operational guidance that directly supports the investigation of child protection matters and other serious offences, and there is a clear link between disclosure of this information and damage to Cleveland Police’s ability to detect and prevent crime.

[29]Would disclosure cause this prejudice, or would it be likely to do so? Cleveland Police’s position is that disclosure would prejudice both the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. We have considered the specific information that is now being withheld, the closed explanation that was provided by Cleveland Police, and the gist of this explanation. We are satisfied that disclosure would be likely to cause this prejudice, meaning there is a real and significant risk, even if it is not more probable than not. As set out in the gist, much of the information concerns how the police investigate potential suspects of child abuse (both current and historical), including various operational details and specific procedures. We accept that, if released into the public domain, this could assist offenders in circumventing detection and prosecution by changing their behaviour (such as by concealing offending in specific ways, destroying evidence, and anticipating the steps the police are likely to take). There is also tactical information about how Cleveland Police interact with third party agencies and share information in order to safeguard children and apprehend offenders, which again could be used by offenders to change behaviour and so avoid detection and prosecution.

[30]The Appellant’s position in his appeal was that the assessment of likelihood of prejudice is flawed and not supported by sufficient evidence, Cleveland Police’s argument was vague and generic, and they have failed to meet the initial burden of proof. We have addressed these concerns by not accepting that the entire document could be withheld and requiring disclosure of a redacted version of the document. In his latest representations, the Appellant acknowledges that section 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA (law enforcement) may be engaged in respect of some of the requested information. Having considered the withheld information, we are satisfied that these exemptions are engaged.

[31]If section 31(1)(a) is engaged, in all the circumstances of the case, does the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information? We have considered the balance of public interests, and find that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions does outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information.

[32]This is the Appellant’s main argument. He submits that the public interest in disclosure is overwhelming and outweighs any prejudice that might arise. He refers to transparency, accountability and restoring public confidence in the context of systemic child abuse. He also says that the prejudice claimed is based on generic arguments and significantly less compelling for policies related to non-recent cases. In his most recent representations, he refers to the following points:a. The gravity of the investigation – the investigation concerns serious allegations of child abuse, including historical abuse. There is a powerful public interest in understanding how such investigations are conducted.

b. Public confidence in policing – disclosure would enhance public confidence in the police’s handling of such sensitive investigations and demonstrate accountability.

c. The Operation Hydrant context – the investigation falls within the scope of Operation Hydrant, which coordinates non-recent child sexual abuse investigations across the country. There is a significant public interest in understanding how local forces implement national guidance.

[33]We acknowledge that there is a strong public interest in understanding how serious allegations of child abuse are investigated, including historic allegations. These are particularly serious and sensitive crimes, and it is important for the public to understand how national guidance is being implemented so that police forces can be held to account. We agree that disclosure also enhances public confidence in policing, and that transparency is particularly important if there have been failures in the past.

[34]We have also considered the public interest in maintaining the exemptions. There is a clear public interest in ensuring that the police can detect, prevent and prosecute crimes effectively. This interest is particularly strong for very serious crimes such as child abuse. Any disclosure of information that would enable criminals who abuse children to evade detection and prosecution would not be in the public interest.

[35]We have considered the Appellant’s point that the prejudice is less compelling for policies related to non-recent cases. We note that the section of the document that relates specifically to historic allegations has already been disclosed in full. The withheld information relates to current allegations as well, and so we do not agree that the prejudice is less compelling. The information is current and could be used by current offenders to facilitate their crimes. The fact that the specific information about historic allegations has been disclosed also limits the interests in disclosure. The withheld information is also relevant to historic allegations to some extent, but it is general information about how all child abuse offences are investigated. This is of only limited relevance to issues such as Operation Hydrant.

[36]Having considered the public interest balance on both sides, we find that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions does outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information that has been redacted from the Child Protection Guidance.

[37]For completeness, some individual details including email addresses have been withheld under section 40 FOIA (personal data). The Appellant has not challenged this. We can confirm that section 40 is engaged and can be relied on to withhold these personal details, as there is no obvious legitimate interest in disclosure that would make this processing of personal data lawful.

[38]We therefore uphold the appeal in part. Cleveland Police were not entitled to withhold the entirety of the Child Protection Guidance. They can rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) and section 40 FOIA to withhold some of the requested information, in accordance with the redacted version of the document that has been provided to the Tribunal.

[39]The redacted version of the Child Protection Guidance has already been provided to the Appellant by being copied to him during these proceedings. As this was ordered by the Tribunal rather than a disclosure under FOIA, the Substituted Decision Notice requires Cleveland Police to provide the document to the Appellant under FOIA within 14 days. Signed Judge Oliver Date: 24 July 2026