A journalist’s attempt to obtain audio and video recordings relating to the fatal police shooting of Chris Kaba has been dismissed by the First‑tier Tribunal, which upheld the Information Commissioner’s finding that the request was vexatious.
In a decision handed down on Wednesday in the case of Edward Williams v The Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 399 (GRC), Tribunal Judge Swaney and members Cosgrave and Taylor ruled that the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) acted lawfully when it refused to release the material under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Tribunal concluded that based on prior responses to similar requests, the requester, Edward Williams, should have known that the information was unlikely to be disclosed during an active homicide investigation.
Williams filed his request on 14th September 2022, nine days after Kaba was shot by police in Streatham Hill. He sought “all audio or video recordings” from one hour before to one hour after the shooting, stating that the request was for journalism and in the public interest.
The IOPC refused the request in October 2022, citing the early and sensitive stage of its homicide investigation. It argued that processing the footage, gathered from multiple sources and requiring detailed review and potential redaction, would place a "significant burden" on operational staff and risk "prejudicing the investigation".
The IOPC also emphasised the potential harm of premature disclosure, referencing the Mark Duggan case, where early dissemination of unverified information had inflamed community tensions.
Williams sought an internal review by the IOPC, then complained to the Information Commissioner after failing to engage with the IOPC's request for clarification.
In December 2022, the Commissioner upheld the IOPC’s refusal, finding the request vexatious. The ICO pointed to Williams’ history of making similar requests that had been repeatedly rejected during ongoing investigations, and found he had not demonstrated any value to the request beyond broad assertions of public interest.
Williams appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that:
- the ICO did not adequately justify the “vexatious” label,
- public interest should outweigh any reliance on section 14(1),
- persistence in requesting information does not constitute vexatiousness, and
- the ICO gave excessive weight to his failure to respond to the IOPC.
He also submitted publicly available reports on the shooting and argued that the Commissioner had effectively turned section 14 into a blanket exemption.
The Tribunal examined the case under the framework set out in Dransfield, which considers burden, motive, value, and any harassment caused.
It found:
- Substantial burden: Complying with the request would have required extensive review and handling of sensitive evidence during a critical stage of the investigation.
- Timing: The request - made just nine days after the shooting- came at a point when the relevance and significance of evidence had not yet been assessed.
- Context: Williams had previously made multiple similar requests and should have known they were unlikely to succeed.
- Public interest not decisive: While the case attracted legitimate public concern, the Tribunal found that early disclosure risked harming the investigation and potential criminal proceedings.
- No improper motive or harassment: His purpose as a journalist was accepted as genuine, but this did not outweigh the other factors.
The Tribunal rejected Williams’ attempt to exclude reliance on an Upper Tribunal decision in a related case also involving him, stating that it was binding authority rather than inadmissible evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the IOPC had properly applied section 14(1) and that the Commissioner’s decision was sound. Williams’ appeal was dismissed.
