The First‑tier Tribunal has ordered the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to disclose portions of a confidential briefing prepared for former Prime Minister David Cameron ahead of his 2013 visit to China, ruling that the department wrongly applied section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In a decision issued on 2 March 2026, the Tribunal allowed the appeal brought by requester Edward Williams and substituted a fresh decision notice. While it upheld the FCDO’s reliance on section 27 (international relations) and section 40(2) (personal data) for some material, it found that the department was not entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) to withhold other passages.
The Tribunal directed the FCDO to disclose the information highlighted in green in the closed bundle within 35 days.
Williams had requested “the briefing notes prepared for prime minister David Cameron for his trip to China in December 2013, including but not limited to his meeting with Xi Jinping.” The FCDO confirmed it held the material but withheld significant portions under sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d), as well as sections 35, 36, 40(2), 43(2), and the neither‑confirm‑nor‑deny provisions in sections 23(5) and 24(2). Some information was later disclosed during the Commissioner’s investigation.
The Information Commissioner’s decision notice of 15 July 2024 upheld the FCDO’s reliance on section 27, concluding that disclosure “posed a genuine and real risk to UK‑Chinese relations” and could undermine the UK’s reputation as a trusted diplomatic partner. The Commissioner also found that the FCDO had breached section 17(3) by failing to complete its public interest test within a reasonable time.
On appeal, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of Dan Chugg, the FCDO’s Director for North East Asia and China, that disclosure of certain passages would prejudice UK‑China relations and potentially affect the UK’s wider international standing. It found that section 27 was properly engaged for the information highlighted in yellow in the closed bundle.
However, the Tribunal rejected the FCDO’s attempt to rely on section 36(2)(c) for other material. While acknowledging that the Qualified Person’s opinion is entitled to respect, the panel concluded that the threshold for engaging the exemption had not been met in relation to the green‑highlighted text.
The Tribunal also upheld the FCDO’s reliance on section 40(2) to withhold personal data, finding that the individuals concerned had a legitimate expectation of privacy and that disclosure would contravene data protection principles.
Williams argued that the public interest in transparency, particularly concerning human rights issues in China, outweighed the claimed harms. He submitted that “genocide is the trump card” in the public interest test. The Tribunal accepted the importance of public scrutiny but found that, for the section 27 material, the risk of prejudice to international relations remained decisive.
The FCDO must now release the information covered by the Tribunal’s ruling or risk potential contempt proceedings if it fails to comply.
