The First-tier Tribunal has upheld, by a majority, the Cabinet Office's refusal to confirm or deny whether any serving government ministers declared criminal convictions during their appointment process, dismissing an appeal brought by Times journalist George Greenwood while ruling that the Information Commissioner erred in law by treating the relevant exemption as absolute rather than qualified.
The panel, chaired by Judge Cragg KC sitting with tribunal members Raz Edwards and Kerry Pepperell, heard the appeal on 13 May 2026, with the decision promulgated on 23 July. Greenwood's request, made on 5 December 2024 in the wake of Louise Haigh's resignation as Transport Secretary over an undisclosed fraud conviction, asked whether any current ministers had declared a criminal conviction during the appointments process and, if so, how many.
The majority concluded that:
- confirming or denying whether the requested information is held would disclose personal data;
- that personal data constitutes criminal offence data within Article 10 UK GDPR;
- no condition in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018 had been established;
- confirmation or denial would therefore involve unlawful processing;
- section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA is engaged and is properly characterised as a qualified exemption;
- section 36(3) FOIA is also established, though section 41(2) is not; and
- the public interest favours maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny.
Section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 disapplies the duty to confirm or deny where doing so would contravene the data protection principles. Criminal offence data attracts enhanced protection under Article 10 of the UK GDPR and can only be processed where one of the conditions in Schedule 1, Parts 1 to 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 is met.
The Cabinet Office issued a neither confirm nor deny response to the request, later adding reliance on sections 41(2) and 36(3). The Commissioner's decision notice of 12 November 2025 upheld the refusal on section 40(5B) alone, accepting the Cabinet Office's argument that even a bare confirmation or denial would disclose personal data through a "mosaic effect".
On that basis, a confirmation that information was held, followed by a ministerial resignation and a repeat request producing a "not held" response, could reveal that the departed minister had declared a conviction. The Commissioner also reasoned that a "not held" response would itself convey information about every serving minister, i.e. that none had declared a conviction.
Greenwood argued that the request sought only aggregate statistical information about a relatively large group from which no individual could be identified, that the mosaic analysis was speculative, and that lawful bases existed in any event under Article 6 UK GDPR and the substantial public interest and journalism conditions in Schedule 1.
The majority of the tribunal panel rejected those submissions, though it acknowledged the significant public interest at stake, noting that the request concerned standards in public life and the integrity of those holding ministerial office.
Greenwood successfully argued, howver, that the provision is not listed among the absolute exemptions in section 2(3) FOIA, meaning the Commissioner was obliged to conduct a public interest balancing exercise and had erred by failing to do so. The tribunal agreed, issuing a substituted decision notice to that limited extent, although the balance came down in favour of maintaining the exclusion, so no further action by the Cabinet Office is required.
The tribunal unanimously rejected the Cabinet Office's reliance on section 41(2). Criminal convictions, as matters of public record determined in open court, do not ordinarily attract the necessary quality of confidence, and the department had not shown how an actionable breach of confidence claim could arise from a confirmation or denial at such a generalised level, detached from identifiable individuals.
One member dissented and would have allowed the appeal in full. In the minority's view, the request sought information about disclosure behaviour within a broad suitability process - what prospective ministers chose to declare - rather than about criminal convictions themselves, so Article 10 was not engaged at all.
The minority warned that treating every administrative process in which criminality may be mentioned as criminal offence data risks expanding Article 10 beyond its intended purpose. On that analysis, processing would have been lawful under Article 6(1)(f) and the Cabinet Office would have been required to confirm or deny whether the information is held.
The decision in George Greenwood v Information Commissioner and the Cabinet Office [2026] UKFTT 1080 (GRC) can be found here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/grc/2026/1080
