Prepared by: Alan M Dransfield

Date: 14 July 2025

Subject: Regulatory Complicity in FOI Suppression — ICO and the Systemic Abuse of the “Vexatious” Exemption Summary: There is compelling evidence that Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) is being systematically abused by public authorities to withhold information that reveals misconduct, health and safety breaches, and unlawful activity. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), instead of acting as an independent regulator, has frequently upheld these refusals — often relying on the controversial and judicially contested Dransfield precedent.

Where authorities use FOIA to suppress accountability — and where the ICO knowingly endorses that misuse — it follows that the regulator is not simply failing in its duty. It is arguably complicit in aiding and abetting unlawful conduct.Key Concerns

• Section 14(1) as a tool for cover-up: The “vexatious” exemption is being used not to manage genuine resource burdens but to silence dissent, deny transparency, and bury uncomfortable truths.

• ICO regulatory capture: The ICO appears to act as an enabler rather than a check on abuse. It repeatedly upholds vexatious rulings even when there is clear public interest, a safety imperative, or legal wrongdoing involved.

• Aiding and abetting crime: If FOIA is used to conceal serious offences — such as corporate manslaughter, gross negligence, fraud, or environmental breaches — and the ICO knowingly supports that misuse, the regulator itself may be guilty of: – Misconduct in public office – Perverting the course of justice – Aiding and abetting unlawful activity

• Judicial precedent weaponised: The Dransfield v ICO ruling, which redefined “vexatious” as having “no value to the requester or to the public,” has since been deployed to silence whistleblowers and campaigners across the UK — with ICO endorsement.Urgent Questions

• Why has the ICO failed to safeguard the public interest in hundreds of Section 14(1) cases?

• Has the ICO ever referred an authority to the police or CPS where FOIA misuse was used to obstruct justice?

• What internal safeguards exist within the ICO to detect systemic misuse of “vexatious” rulings?

Request for Action. I urge all recipients of this briefing to:

1. Demand an independent review of the ICO’s use and endorsement of Section 14(1);

2. Investigate whether criminal offences have been committed by public authorities and/or ICO personnel under the pretext of “vexatious” exemptions;

3. Support calls to repeal or reform Section 14(1) to prevent further regulatory abuse and protect public interest disclosures.

Contact Alan M Dransfield

Email: alanmdransfield@gmail.com