Open Letter to the Secretary of State for Justice – The Weaponisation of “Vexatious”
Date: 03 August 2025
From: Alan M Dransfield, FOI campaigner and litigant in the Dransfield v ICO case
To: The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, Secretary of State for Justice
Dear Secretary Mahmood,
I write to you not only as a private citizen but as the litigant whose name now defines one of the most misused legal precedents in the modern British justice system: Dransfield v Information Commissioner.
In 2009, I submitted a Freedom of Information request to Devon County Council about the safety of a pedestrian bridge — specifically, whether it had been fitted with lightning protection. The council refused, branding my request “vexatious.” This refusal snowballed into a precedent upheld by the Upper Tribunal, and then the Court of Appeal — ultimately redefining “vexatious” FOI requests as those with “no value to the requester or the public.”
That ruling has now been weaponised against hundreds, if not thousands, of ordinary people — campaigners, whistleblowers, and survivors of abuse — to deny them access to truth.
A Legal Fiction Turned Blanket Censorship
I believe the Court of Appeal overstepped its station by creating a new legal test for “vexatiousness” that is not grounded in statute. Lady Justice Arden’s redefinition — that an FOI request may be refused if it has “no value to the requester or the public” — is legally and ethically flawed. It invites subjective dismissal of any inconvenient request, and it hands public authorities a catch-all veto against transparency.
In fact, in my own case, it was later revealed — via third-party records — that the bridge had not been fitted with lightning protection at the time of my request. In other words, my request was valid, necessary, and in the public interest. Yet it was still labelled “vexatious” — and I have faced institutional retaliation ever since.
Systemic Obstruction by the ICO and Judiciary
Since that time, I have been:
– Banned for life from contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office via email;
– Banned from the WhatDoTheyKnow platform, not just from making requests but from annotating decisions;
– Refused Subject Access Requests (SARs) by the ICO on the same vexatious pretext, in breach of UK GDPR Article 12(5)(b);
– Denied proper hearings or response by HMCTS on multiple occasions.
The Information Commissioner’s Office, instead of regulating fairly, has played an active role in perpetuating these abuses. Senior ICO solicitor Richard Bailey has overseen these actions and failed in his fiduciary duty to uphold the law without fear or favour.
A Call for Ministerial Review
I ask you — as Secretary of State for Justice — to:
1. Review the misuse of the Dransfield precedent across Whitehall, local authorities, and public regulators.
2. Investigate the ICO’s internal practices, particularly the blanket use of “vexatious” to obstruct lawful FOI and SAR requests.
3. Restore the principle of proportionality and procedural fairness in access to justice — for me, and for everyone who depends on public transparency.
I do not seek sympathy or exception. I seek accountability, reform, and restoration of rights that have been unlawfully denied — not just to me, but to countless members of the public who’ve been quietly labelled, marginalised, and silenced under the false cloak of “vexatiousness.”
I invite you to respond publicly — and I will continue to press this matter through the proper legal and international channels until justice is done.
Yours sincerely,
Alan M Dransfield
FOI campaigner
Boston, Lincolnshire
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
Amazon link
Wirral In It Together 