Supreme Court refers question of public interest in disclosure about mobile phone masts to ECJ

29 January 2010 by

Office of Communications v Information Commissioner [2010] UKSC 3

SC (Lord Hope (Deputy President), Lord Saville, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Collins) January 27 2010

Article 4(2) of the European Directive 2003/4 imposes a duty to disclose environmental information. The Environmental Regulations were passed in 2004 to give effect to the Directive, the duty being contained in Regulation 12.. There are a number of different exceptions to this duty, one of which is the public safety exception in reg 12(5)(a), and another the intellectual property rights exception in reg. 12(5)(c).

The information commissioner had ordered that the respondent (OFCOM) disclose information as to the precise location of mobile telephone base stations in the United Kingdom. The Information Tribunal had dismissed OFCOM’s appeal against the order, finding that although disclosure fell within the scope of the two exceptions under 12(5)(a) and (c), both were outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.

Finally, the tribunal refused to accept OFCOM’s submission that it should consider the potential adverse effects identified in respect of each of the exceptions and weigh them in combination as against the public interest in disclosure. While the Administrative Court took the same view as the Tribunal on that point, the Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion, applying the domestic principle of statutory construction whereby the singular included the plural unless the contrary intention appeared. The appellant commissioner appealed against this decision, and the question before the Supreme Court was whether each exception was to be addressed separately, by considering whether the interest served by it was outweighed by the public interest in disclosure, or whether the interests served by different exceptions could be combined and then weighed as a whole against the public interest in disclosure.

HELD:

The court was divided on the issue, favouring the Court of Appeal’s approach by a majority of three to two. All members were, however, agreed that in order to ascertain the answer under domestic law, it was necessary to know the answer to the equivalent question posed under Directive 2003/4, that being the Directive to which the Regulations gave effect. Because the answer was not obvious the matter would be referred to the European Court of Justice. The question referred was, where a public authority held environmental information, disclosure of which would have some adverse effects on the separate interests served by more than one exception under art.4(2) of the Directive, but would not do so, in the case of either exception viewed separately, to any extent sufficient to outweigh the public interest in disclosure, whether the Directive required a further exercise involving the cumulation of the separate interests served by the two exceptions and their weighing together against the public interest in disclosure.

The members’ thinking was impressed by a number of considerations. Each took as his approach the general guidance given in recital 16 of the Directive, and the majority pointed to the references in art.4(2) to the “particular case” and to weighing “the public interest served by disclosure” against “the interest served by the refusal” as supporting the view that all the facets of the public interest in disclosure went into one side of the scales and all the aspects of the interests served by refusal went into the other. The minority, on the other hand, felt that each exception appeared as a separate head, serving separate interests and requiring separate consideration.

Question referred to ECJ

Read full judgment

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: