{"id":614438,"date":"2026-04-20T01:32:40","date_gmt":"2026-04-19T23:32:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/william-stevenson-v-the-information-commissioner\/"},"modified":"2026-04-20T01:32:40","modified_gmt":"2026-04-19T23:32:40","slug":"william-stevenson-v-the-information-commissioner","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/william-stevenson-v-the-information-commissioner\/","title":{"rendered":"William Stevenson v The Information Commissioner"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>1. The Appellant appeals against a Decision Notice of the Information Commissioner (\u201cthe Commissioner\u201d) dated 3 May 2023. The Commissioner submits that there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant\u2019s appeal succeeding and requests that the Tribunal strike out the appeal under rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules. The Request 2. By request dated 20 January 2023, the Appellant sought information from Lancashire police (\u201cthe Police\u201d) concerning an alleged traffic offence, involving a bus and the Appellant as a cyclist, which took place on 21 February 2022. Specifically, the request was for \u201cthe information held about the action actually taken over this offence against the driver of what was then registered as [VRM], using the information above to identify the offence.\u201d The information described as appearing above seems to have consisted of a number of photographs of what the Appellant said was the bus in question. The Police responded on 9 February 2023, stating that they could neither confirm nor deny that they held the information requested, relying upon the exemption under section 40 (5) FOIA. The Appellant sought an internal review on 27 February 2023. The Police confirmed their internal review on 20 March 2023, maintaining their position. The Appellant complained to the Commissioner on 4 April 2023. The Decision Notice 3. By his Decision Notice, the Commissioner reasoned that: pursuant to section 40 (5B) (a) (i) FOIA the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held does not arise if it would contravene any of the principles relating to the processing of personal data set out in Article 5 of the UK GDPR to provide that confirmation or denial; that for 40 (5B) (a) (i) FOIA to apply, the following criteria must be met &#8211; (1) confirming or denying whether the requested information is held would constitute the disclosure of a third party\u2019s personal data, and (2) providing this confirmation or denial would contravene one of the data protection principles. The Commissioner reasoned that \u201cAlthough the request does not identify any party by name, clearly the VRM of the bus, coupled with dates and times would allow for the bus company, and other members of the public familiar with the bus drivers\u2019 patterns of work such as friends and family, to identify the driver in question. Therefore, the request relates to a living person who will be identifiable to some people. The information is therefore the driver\u2019s personal data.\u201d. The Commissioner was satisfied that if the Police confirmed whether or not it held the requested data, this would result in disclosure of a third party\u2019s personal data. 4. Although not argued by the Police, the Commissioner additionally reasoned that for the Police to confirm whether or not it held the information would result in the disclosure of information relating to allegations of a criminal offence committed by the bus driver; and that such constituted criminal offence data for which none of the conditions permitting the processing of such data pertained (Schedule 1, Parts 1 to 3 of the DPA 2018). The Appeal 5. The Appellant\u2019s appeal, by Notice of Appeal dated 24 May 2023, proceeds on the basis that the Police and other forces regularly give out the type of information he sought, and that the reason the Police have refused to provide the information requested in this case is because it took either no or insufficient action against the bus driver. The Commissioner\u2019s Response 6. By his Response dated 7 July 2023, the Commissioner submits that: none of the Appellant\u2019s grounds of appeal indicate that the Commissioner\u2019s Decision Notice is wrong in law; and the Appellant does not dispute that confirming or denying that the requested information was held would itself disclose third party personal data or criminal offence data. The Appellant\u2019s Reply 7. By his Reply dated 1 August 2023, the Appellant continues to focus on his perception of the action or inaction of the Police, and says that \u201cThe DN is wrong for the simple reason that Lancashire Constabulary, the Metropolitan Police, South Yorkshire and other forces regularly give out the information as to the exact penalty meted out to an offender who is \u2018identifiable\u2019 in exactly the same way as the Commissioner claims that the driver of [number] on 21.2.22 is \u2018identifiable\u2019: by the registration of the vehicle involved in the offence.\u201d Discussion and Conclusion 8. In reaching my decision I have considered the Upper Tribunal\u2019s decision in HMRC v Fairford Group (in liquidation) and Fairford Partnership Limited (in liquidation) [2014] UKUT 0329 (TCC), in which it is stated at [41] that: \u201c\u2026an application to strike out in the FTT under rule 8(3) (c) should be considered in a similar way to an application under CPR 3.4 in civil proceedings (whilst recognising that there is no equivalent jurisdiction in the First-tier to summary judgment under Part 24). The Tribunal must consider whether there is a realistic, as opposed to a fanciful (in the sense of it being entirely without substance) prospect of succeeding on the issue at a full hearing\u2026The Tribunal must avoid conducting a \u201cmini-trial\u201d. As Lord Hope observed in Three Rivers the strike out procedure is to deal with cases that are not fit for a full hearing at all. 9. I have borne in mind that the power to strike out must be exercised in accordance with all aspects of the overriding objective set out in rule 2 of the Tribunal Rules to deal with cases fairly and justly. Striking out will be the correct course of action, and support the overriding objective, where an appeal raises an unwinnable case and continuance of the proceedings would be without any possible benefit to the parties and a waste of resources. 10. The role of this Tribunal under s.57 and s58 of FOIA is to decide whether there is an error of law or inappropriate exercise of discretion in the Decision Notice. The grounds of appeal do not engage with that jurisdiction; they do not identify any error of law or inappropriate exercise of discretion. Whatever the practices of the Police and other police forces may have been, in the Appellant\u2019s experience, for giving out information in other cases of the type identified by the Appellant, those do not demonstrate any error of law or inappropriate exercise of discretion by the Commissioner in this case. 11. I conclude that this appeal should be struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. Signed: Penrose FossDate: 24 August 2023.<\/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\/2023\/689\" 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>1. The Appellant appeals against a Decision Notice of the Information Commissioner (\u201cthe Commissioner\u201d) dated 3 May 2023. The Commissioner submits that there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant\u2019s appeal succeeding and requests that the Tribunal strike out the appeal under rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules. The Request 2. By request dated 20 January 2023, the Appellant sought&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7609],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[24566],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7705,7633,7694,7615,8066],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-614438","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-information-rights","kji_year-24566","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-commissioner","kji_keyword-information","kji_keyword-police","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>William Stevenson 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\/william-stevenson-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=\"William Stevenson v The Information Commissioner\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. The Appellant appeals against a Decision Notice of the Information Commissioner (\u201cthe Commissioner\u201d) dated 3 May 2023. The Commissioner submits that there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant\u2019s appeal succeeding and requests that the Tribunal strike out the appeal under rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules. The Request 2. By request dated 20 January 2023, the Appellant sought...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/william-stevenson-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=\"5 \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\\\/william-stevenson-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/william-stevenson-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/\",\"name\":\"William Stevenson v The Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-19T23:32:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/william-stevenson-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/william-stevenson-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/william-stevenson-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\":\"William Stevenson 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":"William Stevenson 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\/william-stevenson-v-the-information-commissioner\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"William Stevenson v The Information Commissioner","og_description":"1. The Appellant appeals against a Decision Notice of the Information Commissioner (\u201cthe Commissioner\u201d) dated 3 May 2023. The Commissioner submits that there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant\u2019s appeal succeeding and requests that the Tribunal strike out the appeal under rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules. The Request 2. By request dated 20 January 2023, the Appellant sought...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/william-stevenson-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":"5 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/william-stevenson-v-the-information-commissioner\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/william-stevenson-v-the-information-commissioner\/","name":"William Stevenson v The Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-19T23:32:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/william-stevenson-v-the-information-commissioner\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/william-stevenson-v-the-information-commissioner\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/william-stevenson-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":"William Stevenson 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\/614438","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=614438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=614438"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=614438"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=614438"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=614438"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=614438"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=614438"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=614438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}