LSB: Data subjects’ rights trumped complainant’s
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is entitled to withhold the email addresses of its board of directors and staff, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has ruled in response to a freedom of information request.
Carol Scott, senior case officer at the ICO, said the complainant could contact the LSB in the same way as other members of the public and had provided “no rationale to explain why a more intrusive disclosure of information is necessary”.
In an 11-page decision, Ms Scott said the complainant, who was not identified, made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the LSB last November, asking for the email addresses of the LSB’s board of directors, together with a “full list” of employees, their roles and direct email addresses.
He also requested the direct email addresses of anyone the LSB was accountable to – in this case the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).
The complainant asked: “Who oversees the Legal Services Board and their direct email addresses?”
The LSB responded by providing a general ‘contact us’ email address which could be used for anyone wanting to contact board members, together with weblinks to its enquiries page and board secretary contact details.
The oversight regulator explained that it “does not have an oversight regulator” but was an arm’s length body sponsored by the MoJ.
The LSB cited section 40(2) of FOIA for withholding the details sought and the complainant referred the matter to the ICO.
Ms Scott noted that the FOIA request was part of what the LSB had described as “ongoing correspondence” outside of the Act with the complainant.
According to the LSB, he had sent “multiple emails to multiple recipients including the LSB with no content other than ‘hello’ and ‘Dear all’.”
Ms Scott said that, under section 40(2), information is exempt from disclosure if it is the ‘personal data’ of an individual other than the requester and where one of the conditions listed in the section applied.
She said the direct email addresses of employees was personal data and could only be released under one of the “lawful bases” listed in article 6(1) of the UK GDPR.
Ms Scott said the ICO considered that the “lawful basis most applicable” was contained in article 6(1)(f) – a three-stage test of whether a ‘legitimate interest’ was being pursued, whether disclosure was necessary to meet the legitimate interest, and whether those interests “override the legitimate interest(s) or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject”.
Ms Scott that there was a legitimate interest in disclosure, “to provide the complainant with a wider means of communication with the MoJ and the LSB” and it was necessary because the complainant “is not able to email individuals directly where he does not have their direct contact details”.
The LSB, which argued that there was no legitimate interest or necessity in the complainant’s requests, said his emails so far had diverted the “limited resources” of a small public body and caused “distress” to those targeted.
Ms Scott said the commissioner concluded that there was “insufficient legitimate interest to outweigh the data subjects’ fundamental rights and freedoms”.
The complainant could contact the LSB and MoJ “via the same channels as other members of the public and has provided no rationale to explain why a more intrusive disclosure of information is necessary”.
Ms Scott said the commissioner considered that there was “no article 6 basis for processing and so the disclosure of the information would not be lawful”.
