Law firm loses FoI bid to learn names of complainants

Print This Post

27 July 2015


Freedom of information: complainants' details were personal data

Freedom of information: complainants’ details were personal data

A law firm which demanded the details of people who had contacted the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to allege misconduct has been firmly rebuffed by the Law Society’s freedom of information commissioner.

But in his first adjudication since taking on the role, Adam Sowerbutts also warned the society that in future it needed to up its game when relying on the public interest exemption that allows it to withhold information about regulatory investigations.

The unnamed firm was told in response to its first request that three complaints about misconduct had been made to the SRA. It then demanded their identities, arguing that if complainants wanted to be anonymous, they should seek a High Court injunction.

But the society refused to provide the details of the complainants, saying to do so would be contrary to the society’s obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. The firm referred the matter to Mr Sowerbutts.

In its submission to the adjudicator, the society said that not all of the information held in relation to the complaints comprised personal data and additionally cited paragraph 14.5 of its freedom of information code, which allows it to withhold information if relating to specific investigations arising from its regulatory role.

But Mr Sowerbutts noted that the society has to undertake a balancing exercise to determine whether or not the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. It is for the society to establish that the public interest favours withholding the information.

The society argued that the knowledge that details of their complaint could possibly be disclosed in response to a freedom of information request would deter potential complainants.

It was also concerned that disclosure could have the effect of ‘tipping off’ a firm or individual in those cases where an investigation about them was particularly sensitive, such as in relation to an alleged fraud.

Mr Sowerbutts ruled that that society’s code was clear that it must not disclose third-party personal data and found that this covered all of the information requested by the firm.

Even though, as a result, he did not need to go on to consider the submissions in relation to paragraph 14.5, he nonetheless told the society that “the rather generic arguments” advanced only served to “partially argue its case”.

He explained: “Brief generic arguments, expressing anticipated concerns, as opposed to concrete and demonstrable prejudice arising from disclosure, are likely to struggle to fully discharge the burden of proof which paragraph 18 of the code places on the society to show why information should not be disclosed.”

Tags:



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Court modernisation: Court Service spins response to NAO report

Roger Smith

After months of debate on the court modernisation programme led by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, we now have an authoritative analysis from the National Audit Office. HMCTS chief executive Susan Acland-Hood professed herself happy. The report was “helpful and constructive”. She was pleased that “the NAO acknowledges our ‘early progress’”. Her comments were more reflective of spin than the span of the NAO report. The NAO acknowledges the ambitious nature of the reform. But comments like “HMCTS’s change portfolio presents a very significant challenge” need minimal decoding to reveal a bit of concern.

May 17th, 2018