Information Rights Tribunal's decision on an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Concerns requests for information made to Humberside police to obtain the number of times the phrase "YOU CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements. Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.

1. 1
Appeal number: EA/2017/0161
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER
(INFORMATION RIGHTS)
- and -
THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Applicant
Respondent
TRIBUNAL: JUDGE CHRIS RYAN
Sitting in Chambers
on 12 February 2018
RULING ON APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
1. Permission to appeal is refused.
REASONS
Background to Appeal
2. The Appellant seeks permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal from the decision of
this Tribunal dated 15 November 2017. The Tribunal decided that the Information
Commissioner had been right to decide that Humberside Police had been entitled to refuse
the Appellant’s request for information on the ground that it was vexatious under section 14
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Application for Permission to Appeal
3. The Application for Permission to Appeal relied on three errors of law, which the
Tribunal was said to have made. These were:
(1) That it was wrong for section 14 to have been relied on because it was not
appropriate to rely on that section as a substitute for section 12.

2. 2
(2) The Tribunal should have given greater weight to the failure of Humberside
Police to provide advice and assistance under section 16.
(3) The original Decision Notice had taken account of evidence relating to events or
requests that post dated the date of the information request.
4. The right to appeal to the Upper Tribunal arises out of section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts
and Enforcement Act 2007 (“TCEA 2007”). That section provides that a party to a decision
of a First Tier Tribunal has a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal on any point of law but that
the right may only be exercised with permission. Under rule 42 of the Tribunal Procedure
(First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (“the Rules”) permission to
appeal must be sought from the relevant First-tier Tribunal.
5. The application for permission to appeal in this case satisfied the formal requirements set
out in rule 42 of the Rules in respect of both its contents and the time limit for its submission.
6. Rule 43(1) requires the Tribunal, on receiving an application for permission to appeal that
satisfies those requirements, to consider first whether to review the decision in accordance
with Rule 44. That rule provides, in relevant part, as follows:
“(1) The Tribunal may only undertake a review of a decision –
(a) pursuant to rule 43(1)….; and
(b) if it is satisfied that there was an error of law in the decision”
Ruling
7. I have considered in accordance with rule 44 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier
Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 whether to review the Tribunal’s
Decision but have decided not to undertake a review, as I am not satisfied that there
was an error of law in the Decision.
8. I reach that decision having considered each of the grounds of appeal. Taking them in
turn:
(1) The justification for allowing Humberside Police to rely on section 14 was set out
in the Decision Notice, was not challenged in the Grounds of Appeal submitted to the
First-tier Tribunal and was, in my view, justified on the facts of the case.
(2) Section 16 was not commented upon in the Information Commissioner’s Decision
Notice, although she did comment on the communications between Humberside Police
and the Appellant after the information request had been submitted and refused. I do
not believe, in any event, that it would be capable of undermining the finding of
vexatiousness on the facts of this case.
(3) I am satisfied that the Information Commissioner had sufficient evidence of
events leading up to the submission of the information request to reach her decision

3. 3
that it was vexatious and that the Decision Notice may not be challenged on the
ground that it was influenced by reliance on events that occurred after the information
request had been submitted.
9. The Applicant is entitled to renew his application to the Upper Tribunal.
(Signed)
Chris Ryan
JUDGE
DATE: 12 February 2018