Jose-Manuel Bapue Darami v The Information Commissioner

Introduction

1. The parties consented to a hearing on the papers, and the tribunal considered that it was in the interests of justice for the matter to be heard on the papers.

2. This is an appeal against the Commissioner’s decision notice IC-315760-D6X0 of 20 November 2024 which held that the Ministry of Justice (the MoJ) was entitled to rely on section 14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to refuse the request for information. Factual background

3. This appeal arises out of proceedings involving the appellant in the Magistrates Court. The appellant received a ‘Notice of Fine and Collection order’ dated 11 January 2024 which imposed a fine of £660, a victim surcharge of £264 and costs of £320. The offence was detailed as ‘Fail to give information relating to identification of the driver/rider of a vehicle when required’. The appellant says that the proceedings in the Magistrates Court were procedurally unfair. In particular, the appellant says that he did not receive a summons and was not notified of the court case. He says that he submitted a statutory declaration to that effect on 23 January 2024 which was ignored.

4. He has made a number of requests for the names of the judge (or magistrates), the legal advisor and the CPS prosecutor who were involved in the case in the Magistrates Court. He has also asked for the ‘oaths and bonds or insurance information’ of the judge/magistrates, legal advisor and CPS prosecutor.

5. It appears from the letters from the appellant in the bundle that his reference to a ‘bond’ or ‘insurance information’ is a reference to a ‘public official surety bond’ or equivalent. These are held by public officials in the United States as a financial guarantee to compensate the public if they act improperly. ‘Public official surety bonds’ do not exist in the English legal system, nor is there any equivalent ‘insurance’ system. Magistrates and legal advisors in our legal system do not have and are not required to have surety bonds or insurance policies.

6. On appointment Magistrates orally take a judicial oath and an oath of allegiance to the crown. The text of this oral oath is available publicly online. Legal advisors and CPS prosecutors do not take an oath on appointment.

7. The appellant states on a number of occasions that ‘Public officials are required to obtain a Surety Bond before swearing the Oath of office’. That statement is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. There is no universal oath sworn by public officials and many public officials are not required to swear an oath. Those that do swear an oath, such as judicial office holders, are not required to obtain a Surety Bond before taking that oath.

8. The following represents the history of the appellant’s correspondence with the Magistrates Courts and the MoJ as the tribunal understands it from the bundle. It is difficult to be certain about the accuracy of the dates and the content of the letters because (a) not all original letters were provided in the bundle and (b) the MoJ tends to give the date of the letters as the date on which they were received, which is different to the date in the letter itself. Not all of this correspondence arises out of the fine issued in January 2024. Correspondence in 2023/2024 not relating to the request in issue

9. In 2023 the appellant made a request to the MoJ for copies of the ‘public official surety bond’ and equivalent insurance policies/bonds and a photocopy of the oath of office in relation to, presumably, a legal advisor or a magistrate. In response to that request in a letter dated 2 August 2023 the MoJ said that they did not hold any of the information because there was no legal or business requirement to do so and referred the appellant to the publicly available information the oaths taken by members of the judiciary.

10. On 6 October 2023 the legal team manager for Wiltshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight wrote to the appellant as follows, in relation to a ‘recent letter’ from the appellant in which he had requested the names of the Judge, the legal advisor and the prosecutor relating to a trial on 22 May 2023. She provided the names of the Judge (DJ Greenfield) and the legal advisor (L Hawes) and said that the name of the prosecutor had not been recorded. She stated: Employees of HM Courts and Tribunals Service do not take an oath of office and so the court cannot provide you with that information. Departments and agencies of HM Government, including HM Courts and Tribunal Service, do not have public liability insurance. Any claim would be met from departmental funds. Nor does HM Courts and Tribunals Service have any other documents that you have mentioned in your letter. .

11. On 10 January 2024 the appellant wrote to Portsmouth Magistrates Court requesting copies of the oath of office and bond (and other equivalent insurance documents) of DJ Peter Greenfield and legal advisor L Hawes. The text of the letter was: I am writing to you as I am requesting a certified copies [sic] of the following documents be provided to me. 1) DJ Peter Greenfield his Oath of office, Bond and the rest of documents on the letter I have attached. 2) Legal Adviser L. Hawes her Oath of office, Bond and the rest of documents I have attached. I have already requested these information from P. Greenfield and L. Hawes but all my 3 letters including the notice of default were ignored. By Law they are required to provide the requested informations but they failed to fulfil with their obligations. Public officials are required to obtain a surety bond before swearing the Oath of office.

12. The attached documents were letters addressed directly to DJ Greenfield and L Hawes, requesting copies of their surety bonds, a long list of related insurance documentation and a copy of their ‘oath of office’.

13. The MoJ replied in a letter dated 26 March 2024. This letter was sent to the appellant via special delivery and signed for by the appellant at 12.32 on 30 March 2024 . In that letter the MoJ stated that the court team lead manager had explained to the appellant on 6 October 2023 that the MoJ does not hold any information about oaths taken by HMCTS employees because they do not take an oath of office and therefore this information does not exist. The MoJ said that she had also advised that departments and agencies of HM Government, including HMCTS, do not have public liability insurance and so the MoJ confirmed that information was not held by the MOJ. The MoJ said that any claim would be met from departmental funds. In the same letter the MoJ referred to and reconfirmed its response of 2 August 2023.

14. In a letter received by the MoJ on 4 April 2024, the appellant requested an internal review of the response given on 26 March 2024.

15. On internal review, the MoJ upheld its response of 26 March 2024 and informed the appellant of this by letter dated 2 May 2024. Correspondence relating to the request in issue in this appeal

16. On 18 and/or 22 January 2024 the appellant wrote to Lavender Hill Magistrates Court. He requested the name of the Judge, the legal advisor and the CPS prosecutor. The appellant headed the letter ‘FOIA request’.

17. In a letter dated 20 April 2024 the appellant wrote again to Lavender Hill Magistrates Court complaining that there had been no response to his request of 18 January. He repeated his request for the names and in addition requested the oath, bond or insurance information of the Judge, the legal advisor and the CPS prosector. The appellant headed the letter ‘Internal review FOIA request’.

18. On 24 April 2024, Bromley Magistrates Court wrote to the appellant. This has been described as a ‘business as usual’ letter in that the request had not been dealt with under FOIA. In the letter the Court provided the names of the Magistrates and the Legal Advisor. The letter said ‘We do not have the name of the CPS prosecutor but I can make enquiries with CPS and notify you.’

19. In a letter dated 1 May 2024 the appellant wrote back to Bromley Magistrates Court stating that the Court had not provided the oaths and bonds or insurance information of the magistrates and the legal advisor. He also asked for the name and the oaths and bonds or insurance information of the CPS prosecutor. This is the FOIA request in issue in this appeal.

20. By letters dated 1 May 2024 the appellant wrote individually to each magistrate and the legal advisor asking for copies of their surety bonds, a long list of related insurance documentation and a copy of their ‘oath of office’.

21. On 17 June 2024 the appellant sent a letter entitled ‘internal review’ to Bromley Magistrates Court, complaining that they had not responded to the request he made by letter dated 1 May 2024.

22. On 2 July 2024 the MoJ wrote to the appellant to say that the request was being handled under FOIA and that they aimed to provide a response by 26 July 2024. Requests, Decision Notice and appeal

23. The appellant made the following request to the MoJ by letter dated 1 May 2024: You have not provided the oaths and bonds or insurance information of the magistrates John Soones, Andrew Clifton and Laura Angus and the legal adviser Aisha Ashgar.

1. Can you please provide the informations [sic] requested and all I have attached.

2. Can you please provide the name of the CPS, his/her oath and bond or insurance informations [sic]?

24. The ‘attached’ information is a reference to the individual letters dated 1 May 2024 addressed to the magistrates and the legal advisor in which the appellant asked for copies of the ‘public official surety bond’, copies of equivalent insurance policies/bonds (specified in a detailed list) and a photocopy of the oaths of office.

25. The MoJ replied, in a revised response sent on 25 July 2024, as follows: a. In relation to the request for oaths of office, the MoJ refused to comply on the basis that it had previously responded to a substantially similar identical request on 26 March 2024. b. In relation to the request for the name of the CPS prosecutor the MoJ said that the appellant’s request for names had been dealt with by the Magistrates Court outside of FOIA as ‘business as usual’. The MoJ noted that the appellant had been provided with the names of the magistrates and the legal advisor and noted that the Court had said it would make enquiries in relation to the name of the CPS prosecutor and would notify the appellant. In relation to the name of the CPS prosecutor, the MoJ said that, ‘The information, if held, cannot be obtained from the administrative systems held for the public authority purposes so is therefore not subject to the FOIA. However, the information, if held, can only be obtained by accessing the case records, which are held in the custody of the courts, for the purposes of the courts only’

26. The appellant requested an internal review by letter dated 5 August 2024. He said that he had not received any letter from the MoJ dated 26 March 2024.

27. The MoJ upheld the decision. The Decision Notice

28. The Commissioner concluded that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 14(2) to refuse part of the request, namely the request for ‘the name of the CPS, his/her oath bond or insurance information’.

29. The Commissioner found that FOIA requests made on 10 January 2024, 1 May 2024 and 27 June 2023 were substantially similar in that the appellant was asking for the same type of information, albeit related to different court hearings. He noted that the appellant had already been informed on 6 October 2023 and again on 26 March 2024 in response to a previous request that the MoJ does not hold the names of CPS prosecutors (the CPS is a separate government body), “oaths” in respect of any of its employees, or public liability insurance details.

30. The Commissioner considered that it was unreasonable to submit a new request for similar information at this point, as the MoJ had already informed him the information was not held and supplied its reasons. The Commissioner noted that section 14(2) does not define what a “reasonable interval” is. However, given what the MoJ had told the complainant in October 2023, he held that it was not reasonable to suppose, in April 2024, that it would now hold this type of information. Notice of Appeal

31. The appellant’s grounds of appeal are that the MoJ has refused to provide the requested information. He said that section 14(2) only applies if the MoJ has provided the requested information. He says that it is not correct to say that staff are not required to take oaths, because the judiciary and magistrates take two oaths when they are sworn in. In his covering letter to the appeal the appellant states that he is not satisfied with the decision because ‘not only did they not respond to the FOIA request within 20 days, when they did, they refused to provide the full information’. The Commissioner’s response

32. The Commissioner submitted that section 14(2) applies where the public authority has previously complied with a request for information, which includes previously confirming that the information is not held. He submitted that in this case the MoJ had previously confirmed this to the appellant on 26 March 2024 in response to a previous request. He submitted that it is unlikely that complying with the current request would produce a different response to that already provided. Additional submissions by the appellant

33. The appellant provided additional written submissions in which he asked the tribunal to disregard the documents relating to a ‘previous case’ i.e. the correspondence not relating to the request in issue summarised above. Legal framework

34. Section 14(2) FOIA provides: “Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request.” The Task of the Tribunal

35. The tribunal’s remit is governed by section 58 FOIA. This requires the tribunal to consider whether the decision made by the Commissioner is in accordance with the law or, where the Commissioner’s decision involved exercising discretion, whether he should have exercised it differently. The tribunal may receive evidence that was not before the Commissioner and may make different findings of fact from the Commissioner. Issues

36. The issues we have to determine are as follows:

1. Did the Ministry of Justice fail to respond within 20 days?

2. Are the requests substantially similar?

3. Had a reasonable interval elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the request in issue? Discussion and conclusions Should the tribunal disregard the correspondence which does not relate to the request in issue?

37. We have considered the appellant’s submissions on this issue. We accept that the previous request related to a different court hearing, but the MoJ argues that the previous request is, nonetheless, ‘substantially similar’ to the current request. The correspondence that forms part of the previous request is therefore relevant to the issues before the tribunal. Are the requests substantially similar?

38. The appellant has made a number of previous requests for: a. the name of the CPS prosecutor in a specified case and b. copies of the ‘public official surety bond’, copies of equivalent insurance policies/bonds (specified in a detailed list) and a photocopy of the oaths of office of the magistrates, the legal adviser and the CPS prosecutor.

39. The appellant made a request for the copies of the ‘public official surety bond’, copies of equivalent insurance policies/bonds (specified in a detailed list) and a photocopy of the oaths of office of Alessandro Roveri on 11 July 2023. In response to that request in a letter dated 2 August 2023 the MoJ said that they did not hold any of the information because there was no legal or business requirement to do so and referred the appellant to the publicly available information on the oaths taken by members of the judiciary.

40. In about September 2023 (described as ‘recent’ in the letter of 6 October 2023), the appellant sent two letters to Portsmouth Magistrates Court asking for the name of the Judge, the legal advisor and the prosecutor and for copies of the oaths of office and related insurance information.

41. The appellant was told on 6 October 2023 by the legal team manager for Wiltshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight that employees of HM Courts and Tribunals Service do not take an oath of office and so the court could not provide him with that information. She explained that departments and agencies of HM Government, including HM Courts and Tribunal Service, do not have public liability insurance. She said that the name of the prosecutor had not been recorded. She said that HM Courts and Tribunals Service did not have any other documents that he had mentioned in his letter.

42. The appellant had therefore already been made aware in 2023 that: 42.1. Employees do not take an oath. 42.2. The oaths taken by Magistrates are available publicly online. 42.3. Government departments do not have public liability insurance and that any claim is met from departmental funds. 42.4. HMCTS do not hold any of the other documents because there is no business or legal requirement to do so.

43. On 10 January 2024 the appellant wrote to Portsmouth Magistrates Court requesting copies of the oath of office and bond (and other equivalent insurance documents) of DJ Peter Greenfield and legal advisor L Hawes. The text of the letter was: I am writing to you as I am requesting a certified copies [sic] of the following documents be provided to me. 1) DJ Peter Greenfield his Oath of office, Bond and the rest of documents on the letter I have attached. 2) Legal Adviser L. Hawes her Oath of office, Bond and the rest of documents I have attached. I have already requested these information from P. Greenfield and L. Hawes but all my 3 letters including the notice of default were ignored. By Law they are required to provide the requested informations but they failed to fulfil with their obligations. Public officials are required to obtain a surety bond before swearing the Oath of office.

44. The attached documents were letters addressed directly to DJ Greenfield and L Hawes, requesting copies of the ‘public official surety bond’, copies of equivalent insurance policies/bonds (specified in a detailed list) and a photocopy of the oaths of office.

45. The response to that request was a letter dated 26 March 2024. We are satisfied that the appellant received that request on the basis of the proof of receipt in the bundle and because he asked for an internal review of that decision.

46. That response referred to and repeated the earlier explanations given to the appellant as to why information on oaths, bonds, insurance etc. were not held by the MoJ.

47. We are satisfied that the current request is substantially similar to a previous request.

48. The request in this appeal asks for the name of the CPS prosecutor and copies of the ‘public official surety bond’, copies of equivalent insurance policies/bonds (specified in a detailed list) and a photocopy of the oaths of office in relation to the magistrates, the legal advisor and the CPS prosecutor.

49. As set out above, the appellant has previously made requests under FOIA for the name of the CPS prosecutor and for exactly the same information relating to oaths, bonds or insurance in relation to the Judge, the legal advisor and the CPS prosecutor.

50. The current request is not identical, because although it asks for the same information, it relates to a different court hearing and concerns different individuals.

51. In our view that difference is not significant. Whatever the identity of the individual and whatever the nature of the case, the MoJ is never going to hold information of the type specified by the appellant in his requests. In relation to the name of the prosecutor, that is because the prosecutor’s name, if recorded, would only be recorded by the court acting in its judicial capacity and therefore would only be held by the MoJ on behalf of the court and outside of FOIA. In relation to oaths, bonds and insurance documentation, that is because in this country we do not operate a system where public officials are required to obtain a Surety Bond before swearing an oath of office. Judicial office holders do orally take an judicial oath and an oath of allegiance, and the appellant has already been provided with a link to that oath.

52. In those circumstances we take the view that the current request is substantially similar to the previous requests.

53. Although the requested information has not been provided, that does not prevent a public authority from relying on section 14(2) . The authority must have ‘complied’ with a previous request for information, which includes indicating that the information is not held. Had a reasonable interval elapsed?

54. The appellant’s previous requests were made on 11 July 2023, in about September 2023 and on 10 January 2024. The appellant was given a clear indication in 2023 that the MoJ did not hold this category of information. All the previous requests are within 12 months of the current request. The request in January was only 4 months earlier. Whilst we accept that some time has passed between the requests, there have been no changes that might mean that the information is now held and there is no prospect that the information will now be held. There is always some burden on a public authority as a result of responding to a request for information, and in or view it is not reasonable to expect the MoJ to do so again within this period of time, when they have explained to the appellant why information of this nature is not held. On that basis we find that a reasonable interval had not passed by May 2024.

55. For those reasons we find that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 14(2) and the appeal in relation to section 14(2) is dismissed. Delay in responding to the request

56. The request of 1 May 2024 was sent to the MoJ by Royal Mail next day guaranteed delivery. The MoJ did not respond until 23 July with a revised response sent on 25 July. This is a breach of section 17(5) FOIA which requires a public authority to send a notice that it is relying on section 14(2) to the requestor within 20 days. We find that the Commissioner should have found the MoJ to be in breach of section 17(5) in the decision notice. As the response has now been sent it is not necessary to order any steps. The appeal is allowed to that extent and we have issued a substitute decision notice to that effect. Signed Date: Sophie Buckley 21 November 2025