Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Decision Notice
1. The complainant has requested the number of times the phrase "YOU
CANT MAKE ME" appeared in police officers witness statements.
Humberside Police relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
3. The Commissioner does not require Humberside Police to take any steps
as a result of this decision.
"1. I would like disclosing for the period commencing 2010 to date the
number of times the following expression has appeared in a witness
statement of an officer serving with Humberside police "YOU CAN'T
MAKE ME" (with or without apostrophe).
2. Where occurrences have been found, I would also like disclosing the
name of the officer who included the expression in the statement."
1
a
Reference: FS50622653
10. HP sent the Commissioner a copy of the internal review dated 13 June
2016, on ll April 2017, explaining that it realised it had not provided
the complainant with a copy. HP had upheld its application of section 12.
It apologised for the oversight, explaining that at the time of the internal
review, it had already received in excess of 20 requests for internal
reviews from the complainant.
13. Section I4(L) of FOIA states that section 1(1) does not oblige a public
authorty to comply with a request for information if the request is
vexatious.
L4. The term "vexatious" is not defined in the FOIA. The Upper Tribunal (UT)
considered vexatious requests in the Information Commissioner v Devon
CC & Dransfield (UKUT 440 (AAC), 28 January 2013). It commented that
2
o
Reference: FS50622653
15. The UT also considered four broad issues: (1) the burden imposed by
the request (on the publc authority and its staff), (2) the motive of the
requester, (3) the value or serious purpose of the request and (4)
harassment or distress of and to staff. It explained that these
considerations were not meant to be exhaustive and also the importance
of:
" ... adopting a holistic and broad approach to the determination of whether
a request is vexatious or not, emphasising the attributes of manifest
unreasonableness, irresponsibility and, especially where there is a previous
course of dealings, the lack of proportionality that typically characterise
vexatious requests" (paragraph 45).
3
o
Reference: FS50622653
24. HP also explained that there had been an article in the Grimsby
Telegraph on 12 January 20t6, whch referred to an incident where it
was suggested that a police officer's witness statement included the
phrase "you can't make me". HP explained that this was the same police
officer who had arrested the complainant.
25. HP also referred to the indicators in the Commssioner's guidance. It
explained that it considered that in this case the following applied:
. Burden on the authority
4
o
Reference: FS50622653
5
O
Reference: FS50622653
35. While most people exercise this right responsibly, she acknowledges
that a few may misuse or abuse the FOIA by submitting requests which
are intended to be annoying or disruptive or which have a
disproportionate impact on a public authority.
36. The Commissioner recognises that public authorities must keep in mnd
that meeting their underlying commitment to transparency and
openness may involve absorbing a certain level of disruption and
annoyance.
42. The Commissioner has considered the wording of the request and
considers that it could be a classed as a random request. In her
guidance, the Commissioner considers that random requests can also
called 'fishng expeditions' because the requester casts ther net widely
6
o
Reference: FS50622653
44. If a request has any of these characteristics then the public authority
may take this into consideration when weighing the impact of that
request against its purpose and value.
45. In the present case, the Commissioner considers that the request would
impose a burden on HP by obliging it to sift through a substantial
volume of information to isolate and extract the relevant details.
46. The Commissioner also considered HP's argument that the request was
of no value. In her guidance, she explains that she considers that if the
information requested will be of little wider benefit to the public, then this
will restrict its value. She considers that this is the case in this instance.
Furthermore, the Commissioner also considers that the requested
information would be of limited value because of the wides scope of the
request. She therefore considers that the requested information s of
very little, if any, value.
47, The Commissioner also considers that FOIA should not be used as a way
to open up issues that have already been dealt with, in this case by the
courts. She considers that it is clear that the complainant has a previous
grievance with HP that is related to the present request.
48. On the basis of the evidence provided and taking into account the findings
of the UT in Dransfield that an holistic and broad approach should be taken
in respect of section 14(1), the Commissioner considers that the present
request is a manifestly unjustified and improper use of the FOIA and is
therefore vexatious for the purpose of section 14(1).
7
o
Reference: FS50622653
Procedural matters
Section 1O - time for compliance
50. Section 10(1) of FOIA states that a public authority must comply with
section 1(1) 2 promptly and no later than 20 working days following
receipt of the request.
51. The Commssioner notes that HP initially relied on section 12 but during
her investigation, it confirmed that it was no longer relaying on section
12. Instead it confirmed it was relying on section 14(1). Therefore, she
considers that HP has breached section 10(1).
Other matters
53. Part VI of the section 45 Code of Practice (the code) makes it good
practice for a public authority to have a procedure in place for dealing
with complaints about its handling of requests for information.
54. While no explicit timescale is laid down in the code, the Commissioner
has decided that a reasonable time for completing an nternal review is
20 working days from the date of receipt of the request for review. In
exceptional circumstances it may be reasonable to take longer but in no
case should the time taken exceed 40 working days.
55. The Commissioner notes that the internal review was carried out on 13
June 2016 which means that it took longer than 20 working days from
receipt of the request for an internal review.
56. However, the Commissioner also notes HP's explanation regarding the
volume of requests for internal reviews received from the complainant
2
Section 1(1) states that:'Any person making a request for information to a public
authority is entitled (a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it
holds information of the description specified in the request, and (b) if that is the
case, to have the information communicated to him.'
B
a
Reference: FS50622653
She also notes that she has upheld its application of section 14
rco.
t'T*"'sroner'sonTce
present request.