NPCC & ICO Tribunal Skeleton Argument

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (INFORMATION RIGHTS)

Appeal against the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice: IC-387981-N0T4
Appellant: Mr Philip Swift
Respondent: Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
Public Authority: National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) reference 2233/2025

04/04/2025  Date of Request
11/04/2025  Date of NPCC Response
20/05/2025  Date of Internal Review response
05/11/2025  Date of ICO Decision notice
30/11/2025 Date of Tribunal Submission

SKELETON ARGUMENT

of the APPELLANT

PHILIP SWIFT

1. Introduction

  1. The Appellant challenges the ICO’s Decision Notice upholding the NPCC’s reliance on section 14(1) FOIA (vexatious request).
  2. The Appellant submits that the decision was incorrect in law and fact, and that the NPCC did not apply FOIA properly.
  3. The request was made for a serious, legitimate public-interest purpose relating to the transparency and accountability of NaVCIS — a policing entity operating within police systems but funded by the Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) on a reward-per-seizure basis.
  4. The NPCC’s reasons do not satisfy the high threshold for s.14(1) set by Dransfield v ICO & Devon CC [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC).

2. Issues for Determination

The Tribunal is asked to determine:

  1. Whether the NPCC correctly applied section 14(1).
  2. Whether the ICO erred in accepting NPCC’s assertions without evidence.
  3. Whether the NPCC improperly failed to consider:
    • section 12 (cost limit);
    • section 16 (duty to advise/assist);
    • section 3(2)(b) (information held by a body performing functions for NPCC — NaVCIS).
  4. Whether the request should be remitted for a fresh response under FOIA.

3. Legal Framework

  1. Section 14(1) disapplies the duty to respond only where a request is “vexatious”.
  2. Under Dransfield:
    • The threshold is high;
    • The authority must evidence grossly oppressive burden, harassing behaviour, no serious purpose, or abuse of process;
    • The decision must be proportionate and based on evidence, not assertion.
  3. Persistent or thematic FOI use does not equate to vexatiousness.
  4. The existence of a serious public interest weighs strongly against a s.14 finding.

4. NPCC’s Reasons and Why They Fail

(1) Alleged “similar requests”

  • No evidence of overlap or duplication was provided.
  • ICO guidance requires clear demonstration of similarity; NPCC only listed reference numbers.
  • The Appellant’s requests concern different questions (PNC processes, NaVCIS/FLA contract[1], annotation policies, statistical data).

(2) “191 internal emails”

  • Internal workflow emails are not evidence of FOIA burden.
  • No breakdown, time calculation, or relevance assessment provided.
  • Burden must relate to retrieval, extraction or redaction — not internal communications.

(3) Time required to retrieve/review information

  • This is normal FOIA work; if excessive, the correct exemption is section 12, not section 14.
  • NPCC did not consider s.12 nor engage with s.16 despite invitations to narrow.

(4) Senior management involvement

  • Internal management processes cannot be attributed to the requester.
  • Authorities must not inflate burden by internal escalation or inefficient practice.

(5) Appellant’s “prompt replies causing distress”

  • Responding promptly is normal and reasonable.
  • There is no evidence of harassment or abusive contact.
  • ICO guidance explicitly states that persistence and follow-up are not indicators of vexatiousness.

5. Public Interest and Serious Purpose

  1. NaVCIS operates within police systems (PNC LoS markers, referrals, seizures) yet is funded through an incentive-based model:
    • £200 per referral;
    • £1,000 + 8% of bottom-book value per UK seizure;
    • Higher fees for overseas seizures.
  2. Independent bodies (World Bank StAR Initiative, Spotlight on Corruption, Transparency International) warn that reward-per-recovery models create risks of perverse incentives and require strong transparency safeguards.
  3. NaVCIS activity directly impacts individuals’ property rights, especially where classification of “stolen” vs “obtained by fraud” determines title under English law.
  4. Police seizure is discretionary under PACE; property may lawfully be left with an innocent possessor pending enquiries.
  5. In this context, scrutiny of processes, data accuracy, and NaVCIS/FLA financial arrangements is plainly in the public interest.

6. NPCC’s Failure to Consider Information Held by NaVCIS (s.3(2)(b))

  1. NPCC relies heavily on NaVCIS-generated data for national purposes (FOI 422/2024 confirms NaVCIS supplies referral and seizure data to NPCC).
  2. NPCC may therefore hold information on its behalf within the meaning of s.3(2)(b).
  3. NPCC took no steps to ascertain what NaVCIS held before claiming burden — a procedural defect.

7. ICO’s Errors

  1. The ICO accepted NPCC’s claims at face value without requiring evidence.
  2. The ICO did not address the applicability of s.12 or s.16.
  3. The ICO failed to consider the serious purpose/public interest, contrary to Dransfield.

8. Conclusion and Relief Sought

  1. The NPCC has not shown that the Appellant’s request is vexatious under s.14(1).
  2. The Appellant has acted reasonably and for a legitimate public purpose.
  3. The NPCC’s refusal is procedurally and substantively flawed.
  4. The Appellant respectfully requests that the Tribunal:
    • Allows the appeal;
    • Sets aside the ICO’s Decision Notice;
    • Directs the NPCC to issue a fresh response under section 1 FOIA, properly considering sections 12, 16, and (where applicable) 3(2)(b).

[1] Removed – the request post-dates the subject request, flowed from it