Source: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/u-k-kennedy-v-charity-commission/
Timestamp: 2017-09-21 10:37:27
Document Index: 96636200

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKSC ', 'art. 1', 'Art. 13', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'UKSC ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ']

Global Freedom of Expression | Kennedy v. The Charity Commission – Global Freedom of Expression
Kennedy v. The Charity Commission
Decision Outcome (Disposition/Ruling), Access to Information Denied, Law or Action Upheld
[2014] UKSC 20
The U.K. Supreme Court held that although information created for the purposes of an inquiry may be treated as absolutely exempt under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the common law and other statutes may nonetheless require such information to be disclosed. The Applicant journalist had applied for disclosure of information relating to a Charity Commission inquiry into an Appeal founded by a Member of Parliament to provide aid to Iraq during sanctions. The Court reasoned that the words used for the exemption were such to remove the requested information from the FOIA disclosure regime and that any question as to whether such information should be disclosed would be governed by other rules of statute and common law. However, the Court emphasized that principles of transparency and openness were an important part of the common law and courts would apply a very high standard of review to any decision not to disclose information in answer to questions of real public interest. Similarly, it said, open justice is also a fundamental principle of common law and judicial, and quasi-judicial, processes should be open to public scrutiny, unless and to the extent, that there are good reasons for secrecy.
The Applicant, a journalist for the Times, made a request to the Charity Commission under the FOIA Act 2000 for disclosure of information it had acquired within the scope of an inquiry conducted in connection with MP George Galloway’s “Mariam Appeal”, which was founded to provide aid to Iraq during the time of sanctions.
The request was refused by the Charity Commission on the ground that the information was subject to an absolute exemption from disclosure contained in section 32(2) of the FOIA, which states that information held by a public authority is exempt information if it is contained in any document placed in the custody of, or created by, “a person conducting an inquiry or arbitration, for the purposes of the inquiry or arbitration”. The Court of Appeal upheld the Charity Commission’s refusal and the Applicant appealed to the Supreme Court raising several issues including: whether section 32(2) of the FOIA contains, as a matter of ordinary statutory construction, an absolute exemption which continues after the end of an inquiry; and (b) if it does contain such an absolute exemption, whether that is compatible with Mr Kennedy’s rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Court dismissed the appeal, by a five to two majority.
It held that as a matter of ordinary statutory construction, section 32(2) of the FOIA imposes an absolute exemption from disclosure that lasts until the relevant information is destroyed or for up to 30 (or in future, 20) years under the Public Records Act 1958. The natural interpretation of section 32(2) is that the absolute exemption continues after the end of the relevant inquiry. The words “for the purposes of the inquiry or arbitration” refer to the original purpose for which the relevant documents were placed in the custody of, or were created by, a person conducting an inquiry. They do not refer to the purpose for which a public authority holds the documents at the time of a request for information.
It elaborated that the effect of section 32 was to take information falling within the absolute exemption outside the scope of the FOIA disclosure regime and that any question as to whether such information should be disclosed would be governed by other rules of statute and common law. Therefore, the Court said, if the law otherwise entitles Mr Kennedy to disclosure or puts him in a position no less favourable regarding disclosure than that which could be provided under Article 10, there can be no basis for concluding that it is inconsistent with Article 10.
In Lord Mance’s opinion, the Charity Commission has the power to disclose information to the public concerning inquiries on which it has published reports, both in pursuit of its statutory objective under the Charities Act of increasing public trust in charities, and under general common law duties of openness and transparency on public authorities. The exercise of that power will be subject to judicial review. Given the importance of the principles of openness and transparency, courts will apply a very high standard of review to any decision not to disclose information in answer to questions of real public interest raised by a journalist in relation to inquiries on which the Charity Commission has published reports.
Similarly, Lord Toulson’s stated his opinion that open justice is a fundamental principle of common law. He said that judicial processes should be open to public scrutiny, unless and to the extent, that there are good reasons for secrecy. These underlying considerations, he said, also apply to any quasi-judicial inquiries and hearings, such as an inquiry conducted by the Charity Commission, though the application of such principles will vary according to context. In conducting any judicial review of a decision not to disclose information, the High Court should exercise its own judgment on whether the open justice principle requires disclosure.
Lord Wilson and Lord Carnwath dissented and would have allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Kennedy had a right to receive the requested information under Article 10 of the Convention. They said they would read section 32(2) such that the absolute exemption expired at the end of the relevant inquiry.
Although the Court upheld the Charity Commission’s refusal to disclose information under the FOIA, it emphasized the importance of the principles of transparency and open justice and highlighted other channels through which information could be requested and that the courts would apply a high standard of review to any decision not to disclose information in answer to questions of real public interest raised by a journalist.
ECHR, Protocol No. 1, art. 1
ECtHR, Leander v. Sweden, App. No. 9248/81 (1987)
ECtHR, Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 10454/83 (1989)
ECtHR, Guerra v. Italy [GC], App. No. 14967/89 (1998)
ECtHR, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], App. No. 32555/96 (2005)
ECtHR, Matky v. Czech Republic, App. No. 19101/03 (2006)
ECtHR, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, No. 37374/05 (2009)
ECtHR, Kenedi v. Hungary, App. No. 31475/05 (2009)
ECtHR, Gillberg v. Sweden, App. No. 41723/06 (2012)
ECtHR, Shapovalov v. Ukraine No. 45835/05 (2012)
Austria, Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung eines wirtschaftlich gesunden land- und forstwirtschaftlichen Grundbesitzes v. Austria, App No.39534/07
ECJ, Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP v. European Central Bank, T‑590/10
IACHR, Art. 13
ECtHR, Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, App. Nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96
ECtHR, Gillan and Quinton v. United Kingdom, App. No. 4158/05 (2010)
U.K., Freedom of Information Act 2000
Sections 1, 2, 12, 14, 21, 31, 32, 39, 40, 78
U.K., The Charities Act 1993
U.K., R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Article 19 intervening), [2012] EWCA Civ 420
U.K., Doherty v. Birmingham City Council, [2008] UKHL 57
U.K., Kay v. United Kingdom, [2011] HLR 13
UK., Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] UKSC 6
U.K., Attorney General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2), [1990] 1 AC 109
U.K., Derbyshire CC v. Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] 1 All E.R. 1011
U.K., Crampton v Secretary of State for Health,Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No 824 of 1993
U.K., R (Wagstaff) v. Secretary of State for Health, [2001] 1 WLR 292
U.K., R (Persey) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2003] QB 794; [2002] EWHC 371 (Admin)
U.K., R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay [1987] AC 514
U.K., R v. Ministry of Defence, Ex p Smith, [1996] QB 517
U.K., R (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2003] EWCA Civ 364, [2004] QB 36
U.K, IBA Health Ltd v. Office of Fair Trading, [2004] EWCA Civ 142
U.K., R v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex p First City Trading, [1997] 1 CMLR 250
U.K., Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AF, (No 3) [2009] UKHL 28
U.K., British Broadcasting Corporation and another v Sugar (No 2), [2012] UKSC 4
U.K., R. v. Home Secretary, ex parte Brind [1991] 1 A.C. 696
U.K., R v Secretary of State, Ex p Nottinghamshire County Council [1986] AC 240
U.K., R v Secretary of State, Ex p Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1991] 1 AC 521
U.K., R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, Ex p Guinness PLC [1990] 1 QB 146, 184
U.K., R v Secretary of State for Health, Ex p Eastside Cheese Co [1999] 3 CMLR 123
U.K., R (Sinclair Collis Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWCA Civ 437, [2012]
U.K., R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, [2008] AC 153
U.K., R (Smith) v Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2010] UKSC 29, [2011] 1 AC 1
U.K., Smith v Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41, [2014] 1 AC 52
U.K., Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2, [2012] 2 AC 72
U.K., R (Sturnham) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 23, [2013] 2 AC 254
U.K., R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323
U.K., Independent News and Media Ltd v A [2010] EWCA Civ 343
U.K., R (Gentle) v Prime Minister [2008] UKHL 20
U.K., Ambrose v Harris [2011] UKSC 43,
U.K., Huang v Secretary of State for Home Department [2007] UKHL 11
U.K., R v Commission for Racial Equality, Ex p Hillingdon London Borough Council [1982] AC 779
U.K., Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1992] 2 AC 1
U.K., Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue [2001] EWCA Civ 595
U.K., Vodafone 2 v Revenue and Customs [2010] Ch 77
U.K., Ghaidan v GodinMendoza [2004] UKHL 30
U.K., Thomas v Bridgend County Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 862
U.S., United States v Amodeo (1995) 71 F 3d 1044
Roşiianu v. Romania
Public Interest, Right to Information
Reserve Bank of India v. Mistry