| SPOTLIGHT |
A council has successfully appealed an Information Commissioner's decision that it should disclose information on its risk assessment of schools. Claire Booth explains why.
In Norfolk CC v Information Commissioner (Allowed: Freedom of Information Act 2000) [2017] UKFTT 2016/0161 (GRC) (FTT GRC) the council appealed against the IC's decision notice requiring it to disclose information requested by a journalist about the council’s system of regular risk assessment of schools and its assignment of each school to one of three categories. The council refused the information request, relying on s.33(1) and s.36(2)(b)(i) & (ii) FOIA 2000. The IC ruled that the balance of public interest favoured disclosure.
The Tribunal held, allowing the appeal, that the balance of public interest favoured maintaining the exemption from disclosure under s.36 (2)(b)(i) & (ii). The public interest in transparency about the council’s running of schools had to be balanced against evidence from those directly involved in the system of a significant risk that it would fail to operate as effectively and thus achieve its goal of improving school performance were the risk category data to be published.
On the basis of the headteachers’ evidence, there was a significant risk that schools would cease to provide voluntarily the range of data currently provided were the categorisation of the school to become public and such a risk posed a grave threat to the continuation of the current system. Whilst the risk of misinterpretation of information by others was in most cases insufficient to favour maintaining these exemptions, it would not be reasonable to expect the council or each school to contextualise a rating based on a subjective judgement by others of data taken in seven snapshots over a year for 400 schools. Such an exercise would involve significant resources and thus very probably lead to a scaling back of the system currently in operation.
Also, the qualified person’s opinion identified a specific prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (the ability to meet the council’s objectives for supporting school improvement and improving educational outcomes for children and young people in Norfolk) over and above the risks identified under s. 36(2)(b), so s.36(2)(c) was engaged and the public interest also favoured maintaining the exemption.
Claire Booth is an Associate Professional Support Lawyer at Bevan Brittan. She can be contacted on 0370 194 1705 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
