Paul Hopkins v The Information Commissioner
NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00597 (GRC)
Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0382
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Information Rights
Decided without a hearing
Decision given on 17 April 2026
Before
JUDGE HARRIS
Between
PAUL HOPKINS
Appellant
And
THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Respondent
Decision: The Application is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with it.
REASONS
Background to the Appeal
These proceedings concern an appeal against a decision notice of the Information Commissioner (“IC”) issued to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria (“PCCN”) on 6 January 2025, reference IC-349252-F0C6 (the “Decision Notice”).
The Appellant in this appeal was the complainant in relation the decision set out in the Decision Notice, who requested information in relation to a specific police operation.
In the Decision Notice, the IC found that PCCN had breached section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) and required PCCN to provide a substantive response to the complainant’s request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA within 30 calendar days.
Following issue of the Decision Notice, PCCN responded to the request on 15 January 2025, providing the Appellant with information with some redactions relying upon section 40(2) and 42(1) of FOIA. The Appellant wrote to the IC as he was dissatisfied with the response he received. The IC advised that the Appellant should seek an internal review from PCCN, as a result of which PCCN reviewed his complaint and provided a response to the Appellant upholding its original position on 20 March 2025.
The IC advised the Appellant to make a new complaint under section 50 of FOIA on 24 March 2025. The Appellant appears to have attempted to do so in October 2025, at which point the IC made it clear that it was unlikely a new section 50 complaint would be accepted due to the delay.
The Appeal
The Appellant lodged an appeal with the Tribunal by way of form GRC1 dated 17 October 2025. He stated that the outcome he was seeking was as follows:
“I want to see the unredacted content of all of the emails which were disclosed on 15th January.
That was the purpose of my FOI request.
An email dated 13th October 2016 from PCC Baird rejected the request to approve a draft Terms of Reference stating "sorry I should have responded but I am not the Appropriate Authority and this had nothing to do with me. It is a criminal investigation...
If the PCC was not the 'Appropriate Authority' to approve the Terms of Reference for what became a major investigation, then I am curious as to WHO was driving the investigation.
I believe that the Disclosure Manager of OPCC and NP is conducting a 'cover-up' to prevent potentially embarrassing information from being released to me.”
The Appellant clarified in his case management questionnaire dated 7 January 2026 that “I wish the Tribunal to consider instructing the Information Commissioner to direct the PCCN to make full disclosure to me of all the emails with redactions only to be made for genuinely legally privileged matters.”
In his grounds for the appeal, the Appellant stated:
“During 2024, during GRC case EA/2022/0269, Staffordshire Police informed the Tribunal that they could not find any emails/documents concerning the Terms of Reference for Operation Eustace.
My FOI requested information from OPCC on WHO had approved the original Terms of Reference for Operation Eustace, WHAT were they? And, as it was clear that there had been multiple changes to the Terms of Reference during the 4 years of the Operation, WHO had approved each change, WHEN etc.
For a major criminal investigation, the Terms of Reference would need to be agreed between very senior officials of the various parties. One email on 4th October 2016 from NP to OPCC begins "Good evening Commissioner,” and asks for her approval to the Terms of Reference. This could only refer to [name]. Yet this is redacted.
However, OPCC have redacted every name in every email, plus dates and titles of many emails and huge amounts of text.
The Court of Appeal in [2024] EWCA Civ 66 states “The redaction of the names of everyone taking part in discussions at meetings or sending or receiving emails…would result in disclosed documents which were covered in black spaces. Such documents are far more difficult to understand than documents which give the names of those involved.”
I believe that OPCC have breached both ICO and Court of Appeal decisions in failing to disclose the identity of very senior officials who have overseen the scope (and change of scope) of a major criminal investigation.”
He amplified this further in his case management questionnaire which stated:
“The grounds of appeal are that the Information Commissioner should have exercised discretion differently and refused to accept the disclosures as being compliant with the Decision Notice. We contend that the substantial redactions undermine the spirit and intent of the disclosure required under the Act, and that the acceptance of such redacted material does not satisfy the requirements of full compliance. “
The strike-out application
The IC applied by way of form GRC5 dated 4 February 2026 to strike out the Appeal on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider it under Rule 8(2)(a) (the “strike-out application”).
The reasons which the IC gave for striking out the application were set out in its Response, particularly at paragraphs 17-19. In summary, these were as follows:
The Decision Notice was limited to determining that the PCCN breached section 10 FOIA as it failed to respond to the Appellant’s request within 20 working days. The PCCN subsequently responded to the request in accordance with the steps ordered in the Decision Notice. The IC has not investigated the redactions made to withhold information provided in that response under section 50 FOIA.
The IC has not conducted a section 50 investigation and a Decision Notice has not therefore been issued making a determination on the application of exemptions to the redactions made by PCCN within its substantive response. The adequacy of this later response was not an issue the IC could have considered at the time of issuing the Decision Notice. A decision about whether the PCCN’s substantive response is in accordance with Part 1 FOIA requires the IC to consider a substantially different question.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider a new question of this nature unless and until the IC has issued a decision notice concerning whether, in any specified respect, the PCCN’s substantive response is in accordance with Part 1 FOIA and then following an appeal under section 57 – see Smith v Information Commissioner [2022] UKUT 261 (AAC) at [52].
The Appellant responded to the IC by email on 9 February 2026 saying that he had written to the IC on 24 March 2025 and that this letter was clearly a section 50 complaint and described the outcome sought. He also on the same date provided an analysis of the documents provided and what he said was missing.
I directed that the Appellant should provide representations in relation to the strike out application by 13 April 2026 under Rule 8(4) as it was not clear to me whether the Appellant wished to make any comment on the application in addition to his emails dated 9 February.
The Appellant made submissions dated 9 April 2026, so I am satisfied that the Appellant has had an opportunity to make representations on the proposed striking out under rule 8(4). The points made by the Appellant, in summary, were as follows:
He believes that the IC should not have accepted PCCN’s response dated 15 January 2025 (and subsequent internal review) as being a substantive response within the meaning of FOIA. He summarised his analysis of the documents provided and stated “These redactions make the disclosures barely intelligible when it is not clear from the unredacted words who was sent, received or informed about matters. If the disclosure document is not intelligible, then this cannot be described as a ‘substantive disclosure’”.
He believes that Tribunal has jurisdiction over his appeal because he has been complaining since 16 January 2025 that the response of PCCN was not ‘substantive’. He states “As a regulator, I believe that ICO have failed to perform their role adequately within this matter. Their argument requesting my Appeal to be ‘struck out’ is fallacious because I am appealing about the failure of the ICO to perform its duty by rejecting that PCCN disclosures were ‘substantive’.”
Legal framework
Section 50 of FOIA provides:
“(1)Any person (in this section referred to as “the complainant”) may apply to the Commissioner for a decision whether, in any specified respect, a request for information made by the complainant to a public authority has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Part I.
(2)On receiving an application under this section, the Commissioner shall make a decision unless it appears to him—
(a)that the complainant has not exhausted any complaints procedure which is provided by the public authority in conformity with the code of practice under section 45,
(b)that there has been undue delay in making the application,
(c)that the application is frivolous or vexatious, or
(d)that the application has been withdrawn or abandoned.
(3)Where the Commissioner has received an application under this section, he shall either—
(a)notify the complainant that he has not made any decision under this section as a result of the application and of his grounds for not doing so, or
(b)serve notice of his decision (in this Act referred to as a “decision notice”) on the complainant and the public authority.
(4)Where the Commissioner decides that a public authority—
(a)has failed to communicate information, or to provide confirmation or denial, in a case where it is required to do so by section 1(1), or
(b)has failed to comply with any of the requirements of sections 11 and 17
the decision notice must specify the steps which must be taken by the authority for complying with that requirement and the period within which they must be taken.
(5)A decision notice must contain particulars of the right of appeal conferred by section 57.
(6)Where a decision notice requires steps to be taken by the public authority within a specified period, the time specified in the notice must not expire before the end of the period within which an appeal can be brought against the notice and, if such an appeal is brought, no step which is affected by the appeal need be taken pending the determination or withdrawal of the appeal.”
Section 57 of FOIA provides:
“(1)Where a decision notice has been served, the complainant or the public authority may appeal to the Tribunal against the notice.”
Discussion and conclusions
The IC’s Decision Notice required PCCN to issue a fresh response to the Appellant, which it did on 15 January 2025. This response triggers a fresh right to complain to the IC under section 50 and this process must be followed in order for a decision notice to be issued giving rise to a right to appeal to the Tribunal under section 57(1).
I also agree with the IC that the adequacy of the response dated 15 January 2025 was not an issue the IC could have considered at the time of issuing the Decision Notice because it post-dated it, so does not fall to be dealt with in an appeal against the Decision Notice. Put another way, the question of how the IC used its discretion in issuing the Decision Notice cannot include consideration of whether a response which had not yet been issued at that time was ‘substantive’ or not.
I find as a matter of fact that no decision notice complying with section 50 has been issued in relation to PCCN’s response to the Appellant dated 15 January 2025. The Appellant therefore at present has no right to appeal the response dated 15 January 2025 directly to the Tribunal under FOIA. As there is no valid right of appeal, the Tribunal cannot deal with the appeal.
The proceedings are therefore struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with them.