The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) did not err when it refused to certify Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council’s response to a substituted decision notice as a contempt for the consideration of the Upper Tribunal under section 61 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
That finding was made by Upper Tribunal Judge Holly Stout in a case whose origins lay in local campaigner Liam Harron’s efforts to investigate how the council handled the area’s child sexual exploitation scandal in the wake of the 2014 Jay Report.
Judge Stout said Rotherham had complied with the terms of the substituted decision notice by issuing a fresh response to Mr Harron’s request that - as required - did not rely on section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
She said the issue of whether Rotherham’s response - which stated that the information concerned was not held - complied with Act was a different question that could form a complaint to the Information Commissioner under section 50, but could not constitute a contempt of court and so the FTT had not erred in law in refusing to certify it under section 61(4).
Mr Harron had argued te FTT was wrong to strike out his contempt application because he considered Rotherham had not provided at least two relevant emails and may have failed to disclose other documents falling within the scope of the substituted decision notice.
The commissioner and the council both maintained the FTT did not err because its substituted decision notice only required Rotherham to make the fresh response to Mr Harron.
This had meant it was open to the FTT to conclude Rotherham had complied with the terms of its order.
Mark Smulian
