The First-tier Tribunal has ordered Cheshire East Council to disclose the permitted numbers of animals on its dog breeding and pet selling licences, overturning an Information Commissioner decision that the figures could be withheld under the law enforcement exemption because of the risk of dog theft.
In Martina Hogg v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 01113 (GRC), a panel found that section 31(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was not engaged at all, meaning the public interest balance never fell to be considered. A substituted decision notice requires the council to disclose the information within 28 days.
Hogg had asked the council in February 2024 for copies of all its current dog breeding and pet selling licences. Following an internal review, the council disclosed the licences but redacted licensees' names and addresses and the permitted numbers of animals, relying on sections 31(1)(a) and 40(2). In a decision notice of November 2024, the Commissioner required the names and addresses to be disclosed but accepted that the animal numbers could be withheld, agreeing with the council that disclosure would be likely to result in premises being targeted for dog theft.
Section 31(1)(a) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. Applying the three-stage test from Hogan v Information Commissioner, as approved by the Court of Appeal in Department for Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner, the tribunal had to be satisfied of a causal relationship between disclosure and prejudice that was real, actual or of substance, and that the prejudice was likely to occur in the sense of a real and significant risk.
The council failed at both stages. The panel noted that licensees' addresses are now publicly available in any event - the most obvious means of locating licensed breeders - and that the licences record only the maximum permitted numbers of breeding bitches, stud dogs and litters, not the dogs or puppies actually present, nor the breeds most likely to be targeted. It accepted Hogg's arguments that thieves target puppies and can establish what is on a premises by posing as purchasers or by observation, and noted that the council had previously disclosed licences including dog numbers, including to Hogg herself in 2021, without producing any evidence of resulting thefts.
The decision criticised the quality of the council's evidence. Despite being joined as a party and directed by Judge Armstrong-Holmes to provide evidence of the causal link and the likelihood of prejudice, the council offered only anecdotal accounts from other local authorities, most of which concerned addresses rather than animal numbers, together with an unexplained reference to targeting by animal rights activists. It also told the tribunal it was difficult to comment on the likelihood of harm because the exemption "has always had the exemption applied", a claim the panel observed did not appear to be correct given the earlier disclosures.
One of Hogg's grounds of appeal was that the Commissioner had taken the council's assertions at face value. In finding that the anecdotal material fell short of establishing any causal connection with dog theft, the tribunal's reasoning underlines that prejudice-based exemptions require evidence rather than speculation from the authority relying on them.
