The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) has ordered the Ministry of Justice to disclose the reasoning behind the compensation award made to the family of Timothy Evans, ruling that the conclusions of a statutory assessor exercising a public function do not constitute his personal data under Article 4(1) UK GDPR.
Allowing an appeal brought by Rabbi Gabriel Kanter-Webber, a panel chaired by Judge Cragg KC set aside the Information Commissioner's decision notice and substituted a decision requiring disclosure of paragraphs 14 to 20 of the assessment prepared by Lord Brennan KC, who in 2003 recommended a £250,000 award as Independent Assessor under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Evans was wrongfully executed in 1950 for murders committed by John Christie.
Kanter-Webber requested the assessor's report in January 2025, having made an identical request in 2016 which the Commissioner upheld the refusal of in 2017. The Ministry of Justice refused the 2025 request, relying initially on section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (information provided in confidence) and, on internal review, on section 40(2) (personal data).
In a decision notice issued in December 2025, the Commissioner rejected the section 41 claim but upheld section 40(2) in part, requiring disclosure of paragraphs 1 to 13 of the report while finding that the paragraphs setting out Lord Brennan's compensation decision and the opinions underlying it were his personal data, and that he would reasonably expect them not to be disclosed.
Section 40(2) FOIA is an absolute exemption which applies where disclosure would contravene the data protection principles, with the relevant balancing exercise conducted under the UK GDPR rather than FOIA itself. Article 4(1) UK GDPR defines personal data as information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, with the case law, including Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner, directing attention to the content, purpose and effect of the information in question.
The Tribunal found that the withheld paragraphs were properly characterised as the reasoning and conclusions of a statutory decision-maker, produced solely in the exercise of a public function and containing nothing about Lord Brennan's private life, financial position, health or other biographical matters. The information was linked in substance to the statutory assessment rather than to Lord Brennan personally and was therefore not his personal data at all, meaning section 40(2) was not engaged.
The panel said it had been unable to identify "any coherent distinction in principle" between the disclosed paragraphs (which already contained evaluative findings, including that the case was among the most notorious miscarriages of justice in English legal history and that Evans's confessions resulted from police oppression) and the withheld reasoning on quantum. Both, it found, involved the expression of professional judgment in discharge of the same statutory function.
In the alternative, the Tribunal held that even if the material were personal data, disclosure would be lawful under Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR. It identified a strong legitimate interest in transparency and accountability in the operation of the section 133 compensation scheme, found disclosure necessary because the disputed paragraphs contained the operative reasoning behind the award, and concluded that any interference with Lord Brennan's interests would be limited and proportionate.
The panel noted that the assessment predated the request by more than 20 years, that no concrete harm from disclosure had been identified, and that the Ministry's contention that Lord Brennan would be unlikely to consent was "speculative". No attempt had apparently been made to ascertain his position, despite the assessor still being alive.
The Tribunal also rejected the Ministry's attempt to resurrect section 41 before it. While accepting a historical practice of not publishing assessments under the scheme, noted by the House of Lords in O'Brien v Independent Assessor, the panel held that a practice of non-publication is not the same as a legally enforceable obligation of confidence, and that the Ministry's argument "risks elevating administrative practice into a rule of law".
There was no evidence of any express confidentiality undertaking, and the withheld conclusions were generated by Lord Brennan himself rather than imparted in confidence by the Evans family. Material already disclosed revealed that interim payments totalling £450,000 had been made and that £850,000 had been sought. Had a duty of confidence existed, the panel found, a public interest defence would in any event have defeated any claim.
Paragraphs 21 to 24 of the assessment, dealing with the applicants' legal costs rather than compensation, were held to fall outside the scope of the request.
The Ministry of Justice must disclose the material within 35 working days.
