Freedom of information

This subtopic contains a range of materials concerning freedom of information, focusing on the regime under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000).

The freedom of information regime

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the freedom of information regime is governed by FIA 2000, which grants a general right of access to information held by public authorities, while also placing an obligation on such authorities to make certain information available to the public proactively and regularly. The body responsible for enforcing the regime is the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

The regime in Scotland contains similar rights governed by different legislation. The Scottish Information Commissioner is responsible for enforcement in relation to Scottish public authorities. Public authorities that span the whole of the UK, such as the BBC or Ministry of Defence, are governed by the regime for England, Wales and Northern Ireland created by FIA 2000.

For introductory guidance on the freedom of information regime, see Practice Notes:

•
Introduction to freedom of information
•
Who is subject to the freedom of information regime

Rights and duties under the freedom of information

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Public Law News

Private school fee VAT judicial review fails (R (ALR) v Chancellor of the Exchequer)

Public Law analysis: Sections 47-49 of the Finance Act 2025 were introduced to give effect to the Labour Party’s Manifesto Commitment to charge VAT on private school fees, in part to raise funds for reinvestment in the state sector. Those measures were challenged by a number of claimants, and were held by the Divisional Court to be lawful. The decision was compatible with the right to education under A2P1 because it did not impair ‘the very essence’ of the right, and was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of the policy. The court also held that the measures did not unjustifiably discriminate against certain minority groups (Article 14 read with A2P1), including children with SEN and certain religious minorities. Finally, the court considered that NAO Reports attract Parliamentary privilege and, as such, cannot be relied upon to establish a contested fact in legal proceedings. Written by Khatija Hafesji, barrister at Monckton Chambers.

Prosperity Institute publishes policy paper proposing UK’s phased withdrawal from ECHR

The Prosperity Institute has published a policy paper authored by Suella Braverman KC MP and Guy Dampier, titled ‘Why and How to Leave the European Convention on Human Rights’. The paper sets out the authors’ view that the UK’s relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has changed significantly over time, citing the introduction of the individual right of petition, the ‘living instrument’ doctrine and the binding nature of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as contributing to a perceived loss of sovereignty. The paper argues that the incorporation of the ECHR into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) has expanded human rights law in ways that affect areas such as immigration, asylum and the treatment of veterans.

MPs launch inquiry into enduring disability employment gap

Law360: Senior MPs have launched an inquiry into the persistent gap in employment between people who are disabled people and non-disabled people, calling for evidence and ideas on how to close it as part of a broader push to address labour inequality.

IfG publishes commentary on Leveson review of criminal courts

The Institute for Government (IfG) has published a commentary on Sir Brian Leveson’s review of the criminal courts, which sets out proposals to address the backlog in the Crown Court system in England and Wales. The review recommends reducing the use of jury trials by retaining more cases in magistrates’ courts, establishing a new Crown Court Bench Division composed of a judge and two magistrates, and allowing judge-only trials in certain serious and complex cases, particularly complex fraud. These measures are presented as pragmatic responses to increasing case complexity and the volume of digital evidence, with an estimated saving of up to 9,000 sitting days annually. While the IfG acknowledges the urgency of reform, it questions whether restricting jury trials is necessary. It notes that overall demand on the courts remains below early 2010s levels and that the total time spent on jury trials has declined by nearly 25% since 2016. The commentary attributes the backlog primarily to a decline in court productivity, citing staffing shortages, infrastructure limitations and operational inefficiencies. It concludes that targeted investment and operational reform could reduce delays without significantly altering the role of jury trials in the justice system.