{"id":562667,"date":"2026-04-14T23:48:43","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T21:48:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\/"},"modified":"2026-04-14T23:48:43","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T21:48:43","slug":"mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\/","title":{"rendered":"Mandy J Thompson v The Information Commissioner & Anor"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. This decision relates to an appeal brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 57 Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("FOIA"). It is in respect of a decision notice ("the DN") issued by the Information Commissioner ("the IC") on 2 June 2025 with reference IC-3490-18-J9T5. It concerns a request for information ("the Request") in 5 parts made to the 2nd Respondent ("the Council") on 18 September 2024. 2. The appeal was decided without a hearing as agreed by the parties and allowed by the Tribunal by rule 32(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First -Tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 ("2009 Rules"). 3. We considered the content of the 160 pdf page bundle. What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered. In this decision any page numbers indicated by their inclusion in brackets refer to pages of the bundle. Role of the Tribunal 4. The Tribunal's role in an appeal by section 57 FOIA is set out in section 58 FOIA which provides that:- (1) If on an appeal under section 57 the Tribunal considers\u2014 (a) that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law, or (b) to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner, that he ought to have exercised his discretion differently, the Tribunal shall allow the appeal or substitute such other notice as could have been served by the Commissioner; and in any other case the Tribunal shall dismiss the appeal. (2) On such an appeal, the Tribunal may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based. 5. This appeal is a "full rehearing on the merits" and inPeter Wilson -v- The Information Commissioner [2022] UKFTT 0149 the First-tier Tribunal ("FtF") said (with which we agree):- "30…the Tribunal\u2019s statutory role is to consider whether there is an error of law or inappropriate exercise of discretion in the Decision Notice. The Tribunal may not allow an appeal simply because it disagrees with the Information Commissioner\u2019s Decision. It is also not the Tribunal\u2019s role to conduct a procedural review of the Information Commissioner\u2019s decision making process or to correct the drafting of the Decision Notice.\u201d 6. We also had regard to authorities such as NHS England -v- Information Commissioner and Dean [2019] UKUT 145 (ACC) and Information Commissioner v Malnick and Advisory Committee On Business Appointments [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC) andForstater v Information Commissioner and others [2023] UKUT 303 (AAC) where the Upper Tribunal at para 40 said:- "40… (1) the FTT is required under section 58 of FOIA to decide independently whether the Information Commissioner\u2019s decision was in accordance with the law. In doing so the FTT \u201cmust apply the law afresh to the request taking account of the issues presented at the hearing or identified by the First-tier Tribunal.\u201d (2) the \u201cordinary presumption\u201d is that it is for an appellant to prove their case. The burden will rest with the appellant except where statute expressly or impliedly provides otherwise:…Neither FOIA nor the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2008 contain any express provision about the burden of proof and neither by implication remove the \u2018ordinary presumption\u2019 either; and (3) however, the concept of the burden of proof is of secondary importance in tribunal proceedings which involve a full merits review, since to apply strict burdens of proof may prevent the tribunal from properly discharging its responsibility to decide the facts for itself and\/or exercise any discretion afresh…" The Request to appeal (in summary) 7. Potto is a village and parish in North Yorkshire. The Council is the parish council. Its auditor is PKF. It has at times approached the Smaller Authorities Audit Appointments Limited ("SAAA") for assistance. 8. On 18 September 2024 the Appellant made the Request in 5 parts to the Council. When issuing the appeal the Appellant said (28)"My Sept 2024 request for information was split into 5 parts, but this appeal does not include part 4 and part 5." We have therefore not considered parts 4 or 5. The remaining 3 parts and responses follow. Part 1 9. On 18 September 2024 the Appellant asked "1. Please provide me with copies of the Councils correspondence, as sent to and received back from the SAAA, seeking financial help for the Auditors invoice for \u00a312,797.70 dated May 2024." The Council said this was not held. 10. On 14 October 2024 this was clarified\/reworded as follows (155 \u201cI request copies of all your information or contact to\/from SAAA in 2024 or that you provide information recording why you have not contacted SAAA about help with the current audit bill\u201d. The Council maintained its position on 21 October 2024. Part 2 11. The Appellant asked "I see this Invoice has the additional audit fees detailed by a separate cover. Please provide a copy of this separate cover." The Council said it was not held. Part 3 12. The Appellant asked "I see the August 2024 minutes say, item 4.3, \u201cIt was agreed that the Final Report would be contested as it contains a number of errors". Please specify the errors in the Audit final report." The Council said it was not currently held. 13. On 5 December 2024 the Appellant lodged a complaint with the IC. During the course of the IC's investigation on 14 April 2025 (81) the Council said that they considered the response to the Request to have been "full and correct." This letter also set out for the IC what searches had been carried out to check to see if information in-scope of the Request had been held. 14. On 2 June 2025 the IC issued the DN by which it reported the decision that the Council "does not hold the requested information". Appeal 15. On 16 June 2025 the Appellant commenced this appeal (as regards parts 1-3) supported by grounds of appeal in which the requested outcome was "Allow the appeal and substitute a notice that orders the public authority to take steps in relation to the request for information." The IC responded to the appeal on 1 October 2025. The Council was joined as a party on 30 December 2025. We also had various Case Management Directions and additional information and submissions. FOIA 16. FOIA provides that any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled to be informed in writing if that information is held (section 1(1) (a) FOIA) and if that is the case to be provided with that information (section 1 (1) (b) FOIA). 17. For the purposes of FOIA "information" is "information recorded in any form" and "held at the time when the request is received" in this case in September 2024. If the information requested is not held in a recorded form at the date the request is received there is no obligation to create it unless to do so only involves extraction or compilation without particular skills or expertise. 18. We considered various legal authorities on the question of "not held" such as Preston -v- the Information Commissioner and The Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police [2022] UKUT 344 ACC, Bromley and others -v-Information Commissioner and the Environment Agency EA\/2006\/0072 and Jeremy Clyne v IC and London Borough of Lambeth EA\/2011\/0190. From these it can be seen that (a) there will not usually be absolute certainty about whether in-scope information is held or not and in considering this question the IC and Tribunal should use the balance of probabilities test and (b) it may be that the information should exist but a failure to retain information does not mean it it is held and is not a breach of FOIA. 19. In the FtT decision in Oates v Information Commissioner and Architects Registration Board EA\/2011\/0138 (with which we agree) it was said that the IC was entitled to accept the word of a public authority and not investigate further:- "11…in circumstances, where there was no evidence as to an inadequate search, any reluctance to carry out a proper search or as to a motive to withhold information actually in its possession." 20. We noted and agreed with the decision in Bromley that:- "13…We think that its application requires us to consider a number of factors including the quality of the public authority's initial analysis of the request, the scope of the search that it decided to make on the basis of that analysis and the rigour and efficiency with which the search was then conducted. Other matters may affect our assessment at each stage, including, for example, the discovery of materials elsewhere whose existence or content point to the existence of further information within the public authority which had not been brought to light. Our task is to decide, on the basis of our review of all of these factors, whether the public authority is likely to be holding relevant information beyond that which has already been disclosed. " Position of the parties 21. The Council has not provided a witness statement or a response to the appeal. It set out how it went about searching for in-scope information on 14 April 2025 in answer to the IC's questions (84). It said:- (a) it searched emails and documents held in its IT system based on key names words and phrases because almost all correspondence is electronic and it is the most accurate way to look for documents. (b) the Council utilises a cloud based storage system and all documents are located in one domain. (c) the searches were comprehensive on the systems. (d) nothing has been deleted or destroyed and information is held in accordance with the Council's documents retention policy. (e) the Council undertook a review of the response that had been given at the Appellant's request. 22. In the DN the IC concluded on the balance of probabilities that there was no further information within the scope of the Request. This conclusion was based on what it had been told about the searches carried out by the Council and because, as said in para 30, "There is no contradictory evidence available to the Commissioner that indicates the council\u2019s position is wrong"(11). 23. In its Response the IC said that the Council had answered all the questions asked, their searches were sufficiently rigorous(52) and the Appellant:- "has provided no evidence that a) proves their allegation that information is being withheld by the Council, or b) contradicts the Council\u2019s position that no information is held" 24. The Appellant's position included that:- (a) the IC's investigation was inadequate (28) (b) the Council's response was extremely implausible (29) (c) the Council's failure to respond was motivated (29):- "to obscure the likelihood they probably did contact SAAA, but SAAA refused to entertain yet another request for a financial bailout from Potto Parish Council. To try to prevent this refusal from becoming public knowledge, Potto Parish Council simply denied it had contacted SAAA about financial assistance with the May 2024 invoice." 25. The Appellant also points to the failure by the Council to respond accurately on request 2. This referred back to request 1 and asked for an invoice for additional audit fees of \u00a312,797.70. The Council said it was not held. After the appeal had been issued the IC challenged the Council about this reply and on 6 October 2025:- (a) the Council replied and said to the IC:- "Further to your email, PPC can confirm that we do hold the requested information. PPC will respond to the requester with the required information." (b) the Council wrote to the Appellant and said (112):- "Further to clarifications from the ICO, PPC have searched our records and located your requested information, please see the table below." 26. On 19 December the IC made a further submission (139) by which it was confirmed that:- "3.The Commissioner understands the Council to have held the information about the \u2018additional fees\u2019 at the time of the appellant\u2019s request but that it failed to locate it due to the misinterpretation.. "4. In view of that, the Commissioner says that he does not oppose the appeal to that extent." 27. The Appellant also made a number of allegations about the Council's conduct in its handling of information rights matters more generally. For example we were told that (124):- (a) the Council regularly showed " reluctance to locate information they hold." (b) the Council' s searches "routinely fail to find requested and held information" (c) "The details provided by Potto Council are often false and appear to be given with a motive to mislead, delay and confuse." (d) "…there are now a staggering 30 decision notices for Potto Council on the ICO website, most with breaches of FOIA or of Good Practice, or both" (e) "I think the Commissioner should now recognise and concede [see 33] the Council\u2019s searches are routinely not adequate and unlawful." 28. In the bundle we saw (102) an external audit report for 2022-2023 in which PKF said:- "We note that the ICO issued a decision notice (IC-157306-S8Z9) on 15 August 2022 in which the Information Commissioner found that the Council had failed to conduct adequate searches for requested information. He directed a fresh response to the information requester following the conduct of further searches. The Council made an appeal on 17 August 2022 against this judgment; however, that appeal was struck out by the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber \u2013 Information Rights) on 23 December 2022. We understand that the Council has yet to comply with the original decision notice and note that the Council\u2019s minutes during 2022\/23 do not record the fact that the appeal was struck out. In our view, as a result of these findings, the Council should have responded \u2018No\u2019 to Assertion 3 on the 2022\/23 AGAR; notwithstanding the fact that complaints against the Council to the ICO in 3 other cases during 2022\/23 were not upheld by the Information Commissioner. We further note that in respect of the financial year 2023\/24, although most cases were not upheld by the Information Commissioner, elements of one case were upheld. The Council should ensure that it considers this when responding to Assertion 3 of the 2023\/24 AGAR." 29. The Appellant also said (148) that "Importantly, I think the Tribunal could maybe suggest the ICO should now consider exercising its powers for section77 FOIA. A section 77 case would be hugely beneficial." Tribunal's review 30. In considering these matters we:- (a) have not had regard to section 77 FOIA as the Tribunal has no role in considering such matters. (b) have not carried out a review of the IC's investigation in the way suggested (see Wilson) (c) kept in mind that the test as to whether information is held is "on the balance of probabilities." (d) noted that only parts 1-3 of the Request were under appeal. 31. We noted the Appellant\u2019s submissions referring to the Council\u2019s wider history in handling information requests and the audit report. However, the Tribunal is required to determine this appeal on the evidence relating to the specific FOIA request under consideration. Past conduct may provide context, but it cannot of itself establish whether information was held at the relevant time. We have not been provided with a full picture of how many information requests the Council has received, how many were handled without difficulty, how often complaints to the IC were rejected, or how often any previous appeals succeeded or failed. In those circumstances we did not regard the Appellant\u2019s general allegations as carrying significant weight. Our focus has been on the evidence about the searches and the circumstances of this particular request. 32. When the DN was issued the IC said that the Appellant had provided "no evidence that a) proves their allegation that information is being withheld by the Council, or b) contradicts the Council\u2019s position that no information is held." This conclusion is challenged by the later location by the Council of information for part 2 of the Request. As seen above although the Council said initially that the information in-scope of part 2 was not held, after the appeal was issued and when challenged by the IC, the Council on 6 October 2025 just said to the IC "we do hold the requested information" and to the Appellant that it had been identified due to "clarification from the ICO". 33. We have no difficulty in understanding and accepting that public authorities might find more information as time passes and we would not wish there to be any disincentive for a public authority to look or think again throughout the process as needed. In this case our concern derives, not from the fact of later disclosure but because:- (a) the Council offered no explanation to the IC that appears in the correspondence. (b) other than saying that it had been found as a result of a clarification, the Council offered no explanation to the Appellant. (c) despite it being a party in the appeal the Council provided no explanation whether by a response or short witness statement or a note to the Tribunal. (d) we were not convinced that the IC's challenge on 23 September 2025 that led to the 6 October 2025 disclosure could properly be described as a "clarification". 34. The IC in its further submission dealing with this change of position said:- "3…it seems that the Council had misinterpreted the request at Part 2 as being for \u2018additional charges\u2019 when the request stated \u2018additional fees\u2019 4.The Commissioner understands the Council to have held the information about the \u2018additional fees\u2019 at the time of the appellant\u2019s request but that it failed to locate it due to the misinterpretation" 35. However, on the evidence, as no explanation was offered by the Council to the IC in our view the further submission is limited to being a record of what the IC assumes might be the Council's position. 36. The effect of this issue for us was that we concluded we could not simply accept what was said by the Council (see Oates). Part 1 37. In support of there being information in- scope of part 1 we were told that:- (a) the Council received assistance from SAAA for the years 2016-2021 (28). (b) they were faced with a bill they could not pay (122)and "the Council\u2019s obvious course of action would be to contact SAAA again for help with the May 2024 invoice"(29) so their answer is "implausible"especially as the Council had been successful with SAAA in the past. (c) "The Council wrote on 14th April 2025 they \u2018have not had any correspondences with SAAA\u2019, which is not at all the same as confirming they hold no information within the scope of my request (something they must do for section 1 FOIA)." (d) The Council and Mr Roberts\u2019 letter is trying to convince or mislead the Tribunal into concluding either there was no contact, or there was no impediment to any contact, with SAAA about the May 2024 audit bill of \u00a312,797.70. I believe this circumstance stretches credibility beyond breaking point.(121) (e) a personal email account may have been used. (f) "it was the obvious step to take, unless there was a very clear impediment." 38. In support of there not being information in- scope of part 1 we were told that:- (a) the Council have been transparent about their previous correspondence with and assistance from SAAA (52). (b) when corresponding with the IC in October 2024 (112) and as late as in April 2025 (82) the Council said that it did not "hold any documents relating to this request." (c) on 14 April 2025 the Council said " Therefore, the statement provided to the complainant is correct and this was confirmed during the review." 39. It would have assisted if the Council had dealt with the Appellant's points by way of a submission or a note. Notwithstanding this and the concerns arising from part 2 of the Request our conclusion is that on the balance of probabilities there was no information held in- scope of part 1 of the Request at the relevant date because of the aggregation of the following:- (a) the Council said that it did not hold information and it maintained that position on review and throughout the appeal process. (b) it went further in April 2025 and said to the IC "Part 1 \u2013 PPC have not had any correspondences with the SAAA relating to seeking financial help for the Auditors invoice for \u00a312,797.70 dated May 2024." (c) while the Appellant's submissions are in effect reasonable assumptions from the Appellant's point of view we have seen no clear enough evidence which would allow us to conclude that a member of the Council was using a personal email account for example or that demonstrates that the Council's answer is not accurate. (d) there are possible explanations for their being no in-scope information notwithstanding the background. These include (and it would have again assisted if the Council had put its case) that the Council at the relevant time had decided to dispute the bill and\/or that they had not at the relevant time started any dialogue with SAAA. (e) on 16 June 2025 (28) the Appellant told the IC that when the Council had larger than expected audit bills in prior years "records show " that the Council contacted SAAA and we conclude that had SAAA been approached again there would again have been records of this. (f) in the Council's meeting minutes for the 15 February 2023, provided by the Appellant, the Council's interaction with SAAA is recorded and we conclude that had the Council, by the relevant date, resolved to contact SAAA again this would have been discussed at a meeting and recorded in publicly available minutes. Part 2 40. We are satisfied that information in-scope of part 2 of the Request was held at the date the Request was received. However since the appeal was commenced this has been accepted by the Council and the IC withdrew its opposition to this part of the appeal. Part 3 41. The 3rd part of the request asked:- "I see the August 2024 minutes say, item 4.3, \u201cIt was agreed that the Final Report would be contested as it contains a number of errors". Please specify the errors in the Audit final report." 42. This is a question put to the Council about information recorded in minutes and the Final Report. It is not a request for recorded information and appears more akin to an interrogatory. In our view it is not a request for information as defined in FOIA. Decision 43. In summary:- (a) on the balance of probabilities the Council did not hold information in-scope of part 1 of the Request at the relevant date. (b) the Council held information in-scope of part 2 of the Request but since the appeal was issued this has been agreed by the Council and the IC and no steps are required. (c) part 3 of the Request was not a request for recorded information. 44. For the reasons set out above the appeal is allowed in part and dismissed in part. SignedJudge HealdDate: 9 March 2026<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. This decision relates to an appeal brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 57 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”). It is in respect of a decision notice (“the DN”) issued by the Information Commissioner (“the IC”) on 2 June 2025 with reference IC-3490-18-J9T5. It concerns a request for information (“the Request”) in 5 parts made to the 2nd…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7609],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7705,7633,7692,7615,7695],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-562667","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-fiscal","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-council","kji_keyword-information","kji_keyword-request","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nMandy J Thompson v The Information Commissioner & Anor - 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\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mandy J Thompson v The Information Commissioner & Anor\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. This decision relates to an appeal brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 57 Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("FOIA"). It is in respect of a decision notice ("the DN") issued by the Information Commissioner ("the IC") on 2 June 2025 with reference IC-3490-18-J9T5. It concerns a request for information ("the Request") in 5 parts made to the 2nd...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\/\" \/>\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=\"19 \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\\\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\\\/\",\"name\":\"Mandy J Thompson v The Information Commissioner & Anor - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-14T21:48:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\\\/#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\":\"Mandy J Thompson v The Information Commissioner & Anor\"}]},{\"@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":"Mandy J Thompson v The Information Commissioner & Anor - 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\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mandy J Thompson v The Information Commissioner & Anor","og_description":"1. This decision relates to an appeal brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 57 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (\"FOIA\"). It is in respect of a decision notice (\"the DN\") issued by the Information Commissioner (\"the IC\") on 2 June 2025 with reference IC-3490-18-J9T5. It concerns a request for information (\"the Request\") in 5 parts made to the 2nd...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\/","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":"19 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\/","name":"Mandy J Thompson v The Information Commissioner & Anor - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-14T21:48:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/mandy-j-thompson-v-the-information-commissioner-anor\/#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":"Mandy J Thompson v The Information Commissioner & Anor"}]},{"@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\/562667","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=562667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=562667"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=562667"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=562667"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=562667"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=562667"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=562667"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=562667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}