{"id":561542,"date":"2026-04-14T22:14:31","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T20:14:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\/"},"modified":"2026-04-14T22:14:31","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T20:14:31","slug":"b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\/","title":{"rendered":"B N Hughes v The Information Commissioner"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>Before we start this decision, we wish to apologise unreservedly for the time taken to issue it. Owing to unexpected personal difficulties affecting the judge responsible for drafting the judgment, the written reasons could not be finalised within the usual timeframe. We recognise that delay can be unsettling, inconvenient and cause uncertainty. We are genuinely grateful to both parties for their patience and forbearance. Introduction 1. This decision relates to an appeal brought by Mr B N Hughes (\u201cthe Appellant\u201d) against decision notice IC-357221-Z3S5 (\u201cDN\u201d), issued by the Information Commissioner (\u201cthe Commissioner) on 22 January 2025. 2. The appeal concerns a request made by the Appellant to NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board (\u201cthe ICB\u201d) for information relating to repeat prescriptions of Amorolfine 5% Medicated Nail Lacquer. 3. In the DN dated 22 January 2025, the Commissioner concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICB did not hold the information requested and that it had complied with section 1(1) FOIA. The Appellant challenges that conclusion. 4. The appeal has been determined on the papers, with the consent of the parties. The Request 5. The Appellant is a patient aged 68 years of age. He previously received three repeat prescriptions for Amorolfine 5% Medicated Nail Lacquer free of charge through Readesmoor Medical Centre between October 2021 and June 2024. In June 2024, he sought a further repeat prescription via West Heath Pharmacy in Congleton. He attended the pharmacy on a number of occasions in June 2024, during which time he was initially provided with an incorrect prescription and was later informed that the correct prescription would not be issued. 6. On 19 June 2024, the Appellant received a text message from Readesmoor Medical Centre stating that NHS guidance encouraged patients to purchase items such as Amorolfine nail lacquer over the counter where possible, as the cost to the NHS was greater than the retail price, and inviting him to make contact if this was not feasible. The Appellant states that he was surprised by this message, given his age, his exemption from prescription charges, and the fact that he had previously received the same medication without charge. 7. Against that background, he made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to ICB seeking disclosure of information relating to prescribing decisions and relevant guidance. The Tribunal sets out the request verbatim. \u201cIn accordance with the requirements of the Information Commissioner\u2019s Office NHS Cheshire and Merseyside and Readesmoor are requested to disclose the following: 1) The number of the previous FREE treatments of Amorolfine 5% Medicated Nail Lacquer prescribed to the Complainant. 2) The date of the previous FREE treatments of Amorolfine 5% Medicated Nail Lacquer prescribed to the Complainant. 3) The name of the Doctor responsible for authorising the previous FREE treatments of Amorolfine 5% Medicated Nail Lacquer prescribed to the Complainant. 4) A copy of the NHS Guidelines applicable to the previous FREE prescriptions provided to the Complainant, including the date and section applicable thereto. 5) A copy of the NHS Guidelines applicable to the repeat prescription dated 11\/6\/24 provided by the Complainant, including the date and section applicable thereto. 6) The name of the Doctor responsible for authorising the incorrect treatment to the Complainant on 14\/6\/24. 7) The name of the Doctor responsible for refusing to authorise the FREE treatment of Amorolfine 5% Medicated Nail Lacquer to the Complainant over the period 11\/6\/24 to 21\/6\/24. 8) The number of Readesmoor NHS patients over the period 1\/1\/24 to 21\/6\/24, who are entitled to FREE NHS prescriptions, and have been informed by Readesmoor that they are now required to source and purchase prescriptions \/ treatment elsewhere due to the same NHS policy \/ procedure applied to the Complainant.\u201d 8. The request appears at bundle pages B144\u2013B149. Procedural History 9. By a response dated 25 July 2024, the ICB stated that it did not hold the information requested and advised the Appellant that the information sought would be held by Readesmoor Medical Centre, the GP practice responsible for the prescribing decisions in question. 10. The Appellant requested an internal review on 1 August 2024. By a review outcome dated 30 August 2024, the ICB maintained its position that it did not hold the requested information and stated that it was not required under FOIA to obtain information from another body. 11. The Appellant responded by letter to express his dissatisfaction on 13 September 2024. The ICB responded on 24 October 2024. 12. The Appellant complained to the Information Commissioner under section 50 FOIA on 15 August 2025 (notably before the result of the internal review). 13. Following an investigation, the Commissioner issued a DN dated 22 January 2025, concluding that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICB did not hold the information within the scope of the request and that no steps were required. 14. The Appellant appealed that Decision Notice to the Tribunal. Summary of the Grounds of Appeal 15. The Appellant\u2019s Grounds of Appeal are extensive and carefully set out. The Tribunal summarises them below, recognising that this is necessarily a summary rather than a repetition of the full detail advanced. 16. We note the detailed background the Appellant has set out in his document titled \u2018Pleadings, Evidence and Skeleton Argument by the Applicant\u2019. We have taken these into account but do not set them out again here. We have read the papers in their entirety but note that we have had particular regard to the letters of complaint dated 29th June 2024, 1st August 2024, 4th August 2024, 15th August 2024, 6th September 2024, 10th September 2024, 13th September 2024, 17th September 2024, 10th October 2024, 23rd October 2024, 11th November 2024, 20th December 2024, 8th January 2025, 9th July 2025 but again we have not set them out here. 17. First, the Appellant disputes the Commissioner\u2019s conclusion that the ICB does not hold the information requested. He contends that, given the ICB\u2019s role as commissioner of primary care services, it must either hold, or reasonably be expected to hold, the information sought, including information relating to prescribing decisions and the application of prescribing guidance. 18. Second, the Appellant submits that the ICB acted improperly in signposting him to Readesmoor Medical Centre. He argues that having directed his complaint and information request to the commissioner of services, he should not have been required to pursue the same matters with the provider, and that the ICB ought instead to have taken responsibility for obtaining the information. 19. Third, the Appellant places significant reliance on the Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009. He submits that those Regulations imposed obligations on the ICB to deal substantively with his complaint and to obtain relevant information from the provider, and that the Commissioner erred in failing to recognise the relevance of those obligations. 20. Finally, the Appellant raises wider concerns about what he characterises as institutionalised buck passing, failures of candour, delay, procedural unfairness, and maladministration. He submits that these matters demonstrate error on the part of both the ICB and the Commissioner. 21. The Appellant requests that the Tribunal order ICB, Readesmoor Medical Centre, and the ICO to make a series of\u00a0ex-gratia payments to reflect what he describes as distress, costs, maladministration and injustice arising from the handling of his requests and complaints. 22. The Appellant\u2019s grounds are addressed further below, under the heading \u2018Tribunal\u2019s Jurisdiction\u2019. Summary of the Commissioner\u2019s Response 23. The Commissioner resists the appeal and relies on the DN dated 22 January 2025 and his formal Response dated 21 March 2025. 24. The Commissioner submits that the only issue within the Tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction is whether the ICB held the information requested for the purposes of section 1(1) FOIA. 25. He maintains that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICB does not hold information relating to individual patient prescriptions, individual GP prescribing decisions, or the patient-specific application of prescribing guidance. Such information is held, if at all, by the GP practice responsible for the Appellant\u2019s care. 26. In response to the assertion that the Local Authority Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009 create an obligation for ICB to obtain the information and prohibit them from passing the request on to Readesmoor, the Commissioner submits that FOIA does not require a public authority to obtain information from a third party, to create new information, or to answer questions which are not already recorded. He contends that the NHS complaints regulations relied upon by the Appellant fall outside the scope of FOIA and the Tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction. He suggests that the Appellant may have conflated health provider complaints (referring to section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009 which contains provisions regarding complaints made to health services) with information requests made under FOIA. He notes that the Appellant refers to his request for information as a \u201cComplaint\/Disclosure Request\u201d throughout his grounds. Relevant Legal Framework 27. Section 1(1) FOIA provides that any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled to be informed in writing whether the authority holds information of the description specified in the request and, if so, to have that information communicated. 28. When determining whether information is held, the Tribunal applies the civil standard of proof, namely the balance of probabilities. 29. FOIA confers a right of access to recorded information held by a public authority at the time of the request. It does not impose an obligation to create new information, to obtain information from another body, or to provide explanations or answers to questions unless those answers are already held in recorded form. Tribunal\u2019s Jurisdiction 30. The Tribunal has considered paragraph 18 of the Appellant\u2019s submissions as set out in the document named \u2018Pleadings, Evidence and Skeleton Argument by the Applicant\u2019. These set out the Appellant\u2019s requested remedy. It is important to explain from the outset that themajority of the findings and remedies requested therein, lie outside the Tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction\u00a0in an appeal under section 57 FOIA. The Tribunal\u2019s consideration must be confined to the narrow statutory question of whether the Decision Notice was correct in concluding that the requested information was not held (or otherwise properly dealt with) under FOIA. 31. The Tribunal does\u00a0not\u00a0have a general supervisory or appellate jurisdiction over the NHS complaints process, clinical decision-making, the conduct of GP practices, patient removal decisions, the adequacy of apologies, or claims for compensation, distress or maladministration. Those matters cannot be determined by this Tribunal in these proceedings. We address this in further detail below. Alleged breaches of the NHS Complaints Regulations 32. At paragraph 18.2, the Appellant effectively asks the Tribunal to determine whether ICB complied with the Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009. 33. Those Regulations do not form part of FOIA and are\u00a0not within the Tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction\u00a0in an Information Rights appeal. The Tribunal has no power to determine whether a public authority has complied with the NHS complaints framework, nor to make findings as to which body ought to have handled a healthcare complaint or whether consent should have been sought under that regime. 34. Even if such matters arise from the same factual background, they are legally distinct from the question the Tribunal must decide, namely whether the requested information was held for the purposes of FOIA. Wider challenges to NHS conduct and alleged maladministration 35. At paragraph 18.3, the Appellant alleges a range of failures by ICB, including failures of candour, breaches of internal policies, and what he characterises as obstructive or dismissive conduct. 36. These submissions go beyond the statutory framework of FOIA. The Tribunal\u2019s role is not to adjudicate on alleged maladministration by a public authority in a general sense, nor to assess the adequacy of complaint handling, internal policies, or professional standards. Such matters fall, depending on their nature, within the jurisdiction of bodies such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman or the courts. 37. The Tribunal may only consider such matters to the limited extent that they are\u00a0directly relevant\u00a0to a FOIA issue, for example whether they cast doubt on whether a public authority\u2019s assertion that information is not held is credible. They do not confer a free-standing jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness or fairness of NHS decision-making. Criticisms of the Information Commissioner beyond FOIA 38. At paragraph 18.4, the Appellant invites the Tribunal to find that the Commissioner failed properly to exercise enforcement powers under sections 51 and 52 FOIA and to uphold wider objections to the ICO\u2019s conduct. 39. In an appeal under section 57 FOIA, the Tribunal\u2019s focus is the\u00a0DN. The Tribunal does not sit as a general appellate body over the Commissioner\u2019s internal case handling, correspondence, or discretionary choices unless those matters bear upon the lawfulness of the DN under appeal. The Tribunal cannot, for example, make declarations about how the Commissioner should have conducted investigations generally, nor can it grant remedies for alleged unfairness or delay in the ICO\u2019s processes. Findings sought in relation to a GP practice 40. At paragraph 18.5, the Appellant seeks findings concerning the conduct of Readesmoor Medical Centre, including the decision to remove him from the practice list. 41. GP practices are not parties to this appeal, and the Tribunal has\u00a0no jurisdiction\u00a0to determine the lawfulness of patient removal decisions or compliance with NHS regulatory frameworks. Those matters are wholly outside the scope of an Information Rights appeal and cannot be determined, even indirectly, through a challenge to a DN. Requests for compensation and ex-gratia payments 42. At paragraph 18.6, the Appellant seeks a series of ex-gratia payments from NHS Cheshire and Merseyside, the GP practice, and the Information Commissioner, said to reflect distress, hardship and maladministration. 43. The Tribunal has no power under FOIA to award compensation, damages, or ex-gratia payments. It can only consider a costs order under rule 10 of the General Regulatory Chamber Procedure Rules 2009 (as amended). Discussion and Conclusions 44. The Tribunal begins its analysis by acknowledging the seriousness with which the Appellant has pursued this appeal and the care with which he has articulated his concerns. It is clear that the appeal arises from matters which the Appellant experiences as unresolved and of genuine personal importance. 45. It is nevertheless necessary to reiterate the limited nature of the Tribunal\u2019s task in an appeal under section 57 FOIA. The Tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction is confined to determining whether the Commissioner erred in concluding that a public authority complied with its obligations under FOIA. The Tribunal does not have a general supervisory or complaints jurisdiction in relation to NHS decision-making or public administration more broadly. Findings of Fact 46. The Tribunal makes the following findings of fact on the evidence before it. 47. The Appellant\u2019s request seeks detailed information relating to his own prescribing history, the identities of clinicians involved in particular prescribing decisions, and the application of prescribing guidance to his individual circumstances. 48. The ICB has consistently held that it does not hold patient-level prescription records, does not hold records of individual GP prescribing decisions, and does not authorise or approve routine prescribing decisions made by GP practices. 49. On the evidence before us, we accept that the ICB performs a commissioning and oversight function and does not determine, authorise or record individual patient-level prescribing decisions. This conclusion is not based solely on the ICB\u2019s own assertion but is supported by multiple and consistent strands of evidence within the bundle. In particular, the ICB\u2019s FOIA response and internal review, as accepted by the Commissioner in the DN, explain that individual treatment regimes and prescribing decisions are made and recorded at GP practice level. That position is corroborated by contemporaneous correspondence from Readesmoor Medical Centre and from the dispensing pharmacy and NHS England material. 50. The correspondence from Readesmoor Medical Centre supports the conclusion because it shows that the prescribing decision was treated as a matter of\u00a0local clinical judgment taken and recorded at practice level, rather than as a decision authorised or recorded by the ICB. In its letter dated 31 July 2024, the practice explains that the Appellant\u2019s prescription was reviewed internally by practice clinicians and medicines management staff, and that the decision not to prescribe was taken by reference to NHS England over-the-counter prescribing guidance applied to the Appellant\u2019s individual circumstances (pages A48\u2013A49). The correspondence proceeds on the basis that the practice itself was responsible for determining whether the medication should be prescribed and for holding the relevant patient-level records explaining that decision. It contains no suggestion that the ICB authorised, approved or recorded the Appellant\u2019s prescriptions, nor that the practice was acting pursuant to any patient-specific instruction from the ICB. This supports the conclusion that the relevant information was generated and held at GP practice level. 51. The pharmacy correspondence provides independent corroboration of where prescribing authority and records were understood to sit in practice. In its letter dated 16 July 2024, West Heath Pharmacy explains that it requested prescriptions directly from Readesmoor Medical Centre, acted solely on instructions received from the GP practice, and was unable to dispense the medication because no prescription had been issued by the practice (page A45). The pharmacy treats the absence of a prescription from the GP practice as determinative and makes no reference to the ICB as a decision-maker, approver or record-holder. The correspondence therefore reflects an operational reality in which prescribing decisions are issued and recorded at GP practice level, and not by the ICB, reinforcing the conclusion that the ICB did not hold the requested patient-specific prescribing information. 52. The NHS England material supports the conclusion by clarifying the\u00a0division between national policy and local implementation, which is relevant to where patient-level prescribing information would be held. The NHS England over-the-counter prescribing guidance explains that certain items should not routinely be prescribed but repeatedly emphasises that prescribing decisions depend on \u201cclinical judgement\u201d and \u201cindividual patient circumstances\u201d, and that any exceptions are to be determined by prescribers applying the guidance locally (pages B182\u2013B191). The guidance does not suggest that integrated care boards authorise or record individual patient prescribing decisions, nor that patient-level prescribing records are held centrally by ICBs. This is consistent with NHS England correspondence which distinguishes between the role of service providers and that of commissioners, without indicating that commissioners hold or approve individual clinical decisions (pages A46\u2013A47). Read together, this material supports the conclusion that NHS England sets national policy, while individual prescribing decisions and the associated records are made and held by local providers, rather than by the ICB. 53. By contrast, the Appellant\u2019s submissions do not rest on evidence that the ICB in fact held the information requested for the purposes of FOIA, but on an inference drawn from the ICB\u2019s commissioning role. The Appellant repeatedly asserts that the ICB must \u201cknow\u201d, or ought to hold, information relating to prescribing decisions because it commissions primary care services and is responsible for oversight of those services. However, FOIA is concerned with whether information is\u00a0actually held\u00a0by a public authority at the time of the request, not with whether it might be expected to exist, could have been obtained, or ought to have been held as a matter of good administration. 54. The Appellant does not identify documentary material showing that the ICB generated, received, retained, or recorded patient-specific prescribing information of the kind requested, nor does he point to any mechanism by which such information was routinely transmitted to or stored by the ICB. His submissions therefore amount to a proposition about what the ICB\u2019s role implies in theory, rather than evidence of record-holding in practice. That approach does not displace the consistent documentary evidence in the bundle, which demonstrates that prescribing decisions were made and recorded at GP practice level, that pharmacies dealt directly with GP practices when seeking prescriptions, and that national prescribing guidance was applied locally by providers rather than through patient-specific authorisation or record-keeping by the ICB. 55. In circumstances where the Tribunal must determine the issue on the balance of probabilities, it is the\u00a0actual evidential picture\u00a0that is decisive. Here, the contemporaneous documents from the GP practice, the dispensing pharmacy, NHS England guidance, and the ICB all point in the same direction as to where the relevant information was held. The Appellant\u2019s submissions do not undermine that picture, because they do not demonstrate that the ICB held the information sought, but instead proceed on the basis that it should have done so. For those reasons, we prefer the consistent documentary evidence in the bundle to the Appellant\u2019s submissions on this point. 56. The Tribunal is satisfied that, insofar as the information sought exists in recorded form, it would be held by Readesmoor Medical Centre rather than by the ICB. 57. For completeness we note the criticisms made of the ICB, Readesmoor Medical Centre and the Commissioner generally. As set out above, these are outside our jurisdiction, and we make no findings in relation to the assertions. We do note however that even taken at their highest, they do not cast doubt on the assertion that the information is not held. Analysis 58. The Appellant\u2019s primary submission is that the ICB does, in fact, hold the information requested, or alternatively that it must \u201cknow\u201d the information by virtue of its role as commissioner. The Tribunal understands this to be an argument based on reasonable expectation and functional responsibility. 59. However as detailed above, FOIA does not turn on what a public authority might reasonably be expected to know, nor on what it might be able to discover if it were to make enquiries of others. The statutory question is whether the authority holds the information in recorded form. The Tribunal must therefore focus on the nature of the information requested and the evidence as to where such information is held. 60. The information sought is patient-specific and decision-specific. It concerns individual prescriptions, individual clinicians, and the application of guidance to the Appellant\u2019s own circumstances. The evidence demonstrates that such information is generated, recorded, and retained at GP practice level. The ICB\u2019s commissioning role does not require it to hold, nor does it result in it holding, individual patient records or records of routine prescribing decisions. 61. The Tribunal therefore agrees with the Commissioner that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICB does not hold the information requested. The Appellant\u2019s sincerely held belief that the ICB must \u201cknow\u201d the information cannot, of itself, displace that conclusion under FOIA. 62. The Appellant also criticises the ICB for signposting him to Readesmoor Medical Centre, which he characterises as institutionalised buck passing. The Tribunal accepts that being directed between different bodies can be frustrating and may give rise to a sense that responsibility is being avoided. 63. However, under FOIA, where a public authority does not hold the information requested but reasonably believes that another body does, it is lawful and appropriate for the authority to inform the requester of that fact. FOIA does not impose an obligation on the authority to obtain the information on the requester\u2019s behalf. 64. A substantial part of the Appellant\u2019s case relies on the Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009. The Appellant submits that those Regulations prevented him from pursuing the provider directly and imposed an obligation on the ICB to obtain information from Readesmoor Medical Centre. 65. The Tribunal recognises that this submission reflects a genuine concern about how different statutory regimes interact. However, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in a FOIA appeal to determine whether the ICB complied with the NHS complaints regulations or whether it ought to have taken a different approach under that framework. 66. Those Regulations govern the handling of NHS complaints. They do not expand the scope of FOIA, nor do they impose an obligation on a public authority to obtain information it does not hold for the purposes of section 1(1) FOIA. 67. The Tribunal emphasises that its inability to determine these issues should not be read as an endorsement of any particular approach taken under the NHS complaints framework. It simply reflects the legal limits of the Tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction in these proceedings. 68. The Appellant also raises wider concerns about candour, delay, procedural unfairness, and maladministration on the part of NHS bodies and the Commissioner. The Tribunal accepts that these concerns are sincerely held and that the process has been experienced by the Appellant as difficult and protracted. 69. However, allegations of maladministration or unfair treatment fall outside the Tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction in a FOIA appeal. The Tribunal\u2019s role is not to assess the overall quality of public administration, but to determine whether FOIA has been complied with. 70. The Tribunal has considered whether the Commissioner erred in law by failing to take account of the wider context of the Appellant\u2019s complaint. It concludes that he did not. The Commissioner correctly identified the scope of FOIA and applied the balance of probabilities test to the evidence before him. 71. The Tribunal notes that FOIA includes a duty to provide advice and assistance where it is reasonable to do so. In this case, the ICB explained why it did not hold the information and identified the body which it reasonably believed to be the holder. The Tribunal is satisfied that this met the authority\u2019s obligations under FOIA. 72. Drawing these strands together, the Tribunal concludes that none of the Appellant\u2019s grounds of appeal disclose an error of law in the Decision Notice dated 22 January 2025. Many of the concerns raised fall outside the Tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction in a FOIA appeal, and those which fall within jurisdiction do not demonstrate that the ICB held the information requested. 73. The Tribunal therefore concludes that the Commissioner was entitled to reach the conclusion he did and that the Decision Notice was correct. Decision 74. The appeal is dismissed. 75. Before concluding, the Tribunal wishes expressly to acknowledge the Appellant\u2019s concerns and the sustained effort he has made to pursue them. The Tribunal appreciates that this appeal arises from matters which the Appellant experiences as personal, significant, and unresolved, and that the outcome will be disappointing to him. Nothing in this decision should be taken as a dismissal of the Appellant\u2019s broader concerns or as a lack of understanding of the frustrations he has described. The Tribunal\u2019s conclusion reflects only the limited scope of its jurisdiction under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and expresses no view on the merits of the Appellant\u2019s wider dispute with NHS bodies, which may fall to be considered, if at all, in other appropriate forums. Costs 76. For completeness, we add that no order for costs is made. We are not satisfied that the circumstances set out in paragraph 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 are met. In particular, we do not consider that any party has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings such as to justify the making of a costs order. SignedDate: Judge Kiai 26 March 2026<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"kji-sep\" \/>\n<p class=\"kji-source-links\"><strong>Sources officielles :<\/strong> <a class=\"kji-source-link\" href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/ukftt\/grc\/2026\/492\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Before we start this decision, we wish to apologise unreservedly for the time taken to issue it. Owing to unexpected personal difficulties affecting the judge responsible for drafting the judgment, the written reasons could not be finalised within the usual timeframe. We recognise that delay can be unsettling, inconvenient and cause uncertainty. We are genuinely grateful to both parties for&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7609],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7712],"kji_keyword":[7633,7694,7615,8067,7636],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-561542","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-information-rights","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-social","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-commissioner","kji_keyword-information","kji_keyword-prescribing","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.5 (Yoast SEO v27.5) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>B N Hughes v The Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B N Hughes v The Information Commissioner\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Before we start this decision, we wish to apologise unreservedly for the time taken to issue it. Owing to unexpected personal difficulties affecting the judge responsible for drafting the judgment, the written reasons could not be finalised within the usual timeframe. We recognise that delay can be unsettling, inconvenient and cause uncertainty. We are genuinely grateful to both parties for...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"22 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/\",\"name\":\"B N Hughes v The Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-14T20:14:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"B N Hughes v The Information Commissioner\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B N Hughes v The Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"B N Hughes v The Information Commissioner","og_description":"Before we start this decision, we wish to apologise unreservedly for the time taken to issue it. Owing to unexpected personal difficulties affecting the judge responsible for drafting the judgment, the written reasons could not be finalised within the usual timeframe. We recognise that delay can be unsettling, inconvenient and cause uncertainty. We are genuinely grateful to both parties for...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"22 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\/","name":"B N Hughes v The Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-14T20:14:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/b-n-hughes-v-the-information-commissioner\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"B N Hughes v The Information Commissioner"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/561542","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=561542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=561542"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=561542"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=561542"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=561542"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=561542"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=561542"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=561542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}