- Safety first—freedom of information and the section 38 exemption
- Original news
- What is the background to this case?
- What issues did this case raise?
- Why did the FTT conclude that an increased risk of unauthorised entry and an unexpected confrontation was not justified on the evidence?
- When assessing the likelihood of endangerment to mental health should the decision-maker have regard to an objective standard (person of reasonable robustness) or the subjective mindset of those individuals who are likely to be affected by disclosure? (see paras , )
- Does the FTT’s decision say anything about the type of evidence that will justify a finding that there is a likelihood of danger to someone’s mental health? (see para –)
- Are there particular unresolved issues lawyers will need to watch out for?
- Are there any trends emerging in the law in this area? How does this case fit in that context?
Public Law analysis: What were the key issues raised in Cruelty Free International v Information Commissioner and Imperial College London? David Thomas, solicitor at Cruelty Free International (CFI), highlights the two primary concerns of the case—substantive issues relating to definitions under section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000) and procedural issues relating to the sharing of information during freedom of information proceedings.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial