IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL APPEAL: EA/2018/00xx

GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER

(INFORMATION RIGHTS)

BETWEEN:

Appellant
and

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPLY

TO APPEAL TO FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

1. This is a request for an extension of time to apply to appeal to the First-tier

Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 4 of rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure
(First-tier) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

Statement of reasons

2. In the present matter, the Commissioner used a single Decision Notice

(FS50656398) to record her decisions in respect of three individual complaints.
The justification for doing so was because her reasoning when determining each
of them was identical. The Decision Notice was issued on 22 June 2017

3. In an earlier related complaint the Commissioner also used a single Decision

Notice (FS50636604) to record her decisions, but in respect of five individual
complaints, justified by the same reasoning. The Decision Notice was issued on 6
March 2017.
4. The complainant had appealed the decision of 6 March but was unable to complete
an application within the time limits in respect of the 22 June 2017 decision. The
complainant was aware that an application for an extension of time could be made.
However, he deemed that the amount of time and effort which would be required
was unjustified weighed against the uncertainty of whether the extension would be
granted.

5. Circumstances since have changed and the complainant considers that the public
interest value of the appeal justifies the time and effort that has been put into
applying if there is a possibility of having the matter adjudicated on by the
Tribunal. The wider public interest is borne out of the systemic failures of police
and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) disclosing evidence which received (and
continues to received) wide coverage in the national press recently and was the
subject of a joint report in July 2017 by HM Inspectors of the CPS and
Constabulary.

6. The complainant’s Freedom of Information requests, which have been considered

vexatious, were made as a consequence of his wrongful conviction. The
complainant believed for good reason that he was set-up and various public
bodies, including the Commissioner, have intentionally obstructed the
complainant obtaining answers.

7. For example several requests to the CPS on the theme of the disclosure of
evidence were obstructed. Though all were escalated as complaints to the
Commissioner, none resulted in the issue of a Decision Notice.

8. It is the complainant’s view, with some justification, that the Commissioner’s role
was to assist the CPS in obfuscating the process because the complainant’s
prosecution clearly fell into a category of cases where disclosure failures affected
the right to a fair trial.

9. It is therefore considered by the complainant in the interest of justice that the

extension of time to apply is granted.

30 January 2018