The First-tier Tribunal has dismissed a freedom of information appeal against the Metropolitan Police Service after finding that a neither confirm nor deny response issued under section 40(5A) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was correctly applied to requests for internal police communications concerning the handling of a death investigation.
In Ashley Chaplin v Information Commissioner & Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police [2026] UKFTT 00838 (GRC), the Tribunal upheld both the MPS's original refusal and the Information Commissioner's Decision Notice, confirming that where a FOIA request is so closely linked to the requester's own personal data that even confirming or denying whether information is held would reveal personal data, the NCND route under s.40(5A) is appropriate.
Ashley Chaplin had longstanding concerns about the MPS's investigation of a death in 2018, which the police treated as suicide but which he believed to be murder. He had been in contact with the MPS over a period of years and was engaged in separate litigation with a local council arising from a coroner's application for permission to bury the body.
In September 2024 Chaplin wrote to the MPS with a letter containing two distinct FOI requests. The first sought the name and rank of the line manager of PC Sibila Arslanagic-Sparkes, and confirmation of the identity of the investigating officer referenced in previous correspondence. The second sought all communications undertaken by PC Arslanagic-Sparkes in relation to his previous requests to the MPS, and the communications between the investigating officer and the MPS Directorate of Legal Services that had been mentioned in earlier exchanges.
In January 2025 the MPS issued a NCND response to the second request under s.40(5A) FOIA. It explained that a FOIA request is not a private transaction. Any information disclosed enters the public domain effectively to the world, not solely to the individual requester. On that basis, confirming or denying whether the requested communications existed would itself reveal information about whether the appellant had made previous requests to the MPS, thereby disclosing personal data in breach of the DPA 2018 and UK GDPR. The MPS signposted the subject access route under data protection law as the appropriate mechanism for obtaining personal data held by a public authority.
Following an internal review that maintained the refusal, Chaplin complained to the ICO.
The ICO's Decision Notice of 14 July 2025 (IC-377904-F0Q8) rejected Chaplin's arguments. He had contended that his requests were "meta" in nature i.e. that while some material might be his personal data, the bulk of the communications sought related to the deceased and others, not to him, and that s.40 should not therefore apply to the request in its entirety. He also argued that any personal data elements should be dealt with under the right of access route within the same FOIA request rather than requiring a separate application.
The ICO found that, given the wording of both requests and their clear links to the appellant, the MPS had been entitled to apply the s.40(5A) NCND response across the requests. It confirmed it was not in a position to adjudicate on personal data issues within a FOIA complaint and directed Chaplin to submit a separate subject access request and, if necessary, a separate data protection complaint.
Chaplin appealed to the Tribunal, reiterating his "meta request" argument and contending that the ICO and MPS had adopted an unduly broad approach. He maintained that non-personal elements of his requests should have been disclosed under FOIA while personal data elements were handled separately under UK GDPR.
At the hearing. Chaplin confirmed that in late 2025 he had made a subject access request to the MPS for the same information covered by his FOIA requests, and had by the time of the hearing received the material. He provided copies to the Tribunal.
On inspection, the Tribunal found the disclosed material consisted of Chaplin's own personal data together with the personal data of the various MPS officers named in his original requests. That finding significantly undermined the argument that the bulk of the requested material fell outside the scope of s.40.
The Tribunal, sitting as Judge Hughes with Members Chafer and Wolf, dismissed the appeal. It was satisfied that the wording of Chaplin's September 2024 requests clearly identified the material sought as his personal data, and that the inspection of the subject access material confirmed both the personal data character of the information and its connection to the named MPS officers. Both s.40(5A) and s.40(5B) had been correctly applied by the MPS, and the ICO's Decision Notice was in accordance with the law.
