1. Background

Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows a public authority to refuse a request it deems “vexatious.”

Originally intended as a narrow procedural safeguard to prevent abusive or frivolous requests, it has been expanded — in practice — into a systemic tool of exclusion against campaigners, journalists, whistleblowers, and public-interest requesters.

2. Legal Foundations Undermined

A. Fraud Unravels All — Lord Denning (Lazarus Estates v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702)“No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.”

When Section 14(1) is applied:knowingly to suppress information,to disguise wrongdoing, or to impose blanket bans without legal basis,the exemption becomes an instrument of deception. Any decision built upon it is liable to be void ab initio under Denning’s principle.

B. Wednesbury Unreasonableness — Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223A decision is unlawful if it:

is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it,relies on irrelevant considerations or ignores relevant ones,is made in bad faith or for improper purposes.

Section 14(1) refusals often:

lack proper evidence or reasoning, rely on post-request behaviour or unfounded assumptions, ignore the serious purpose and public interest of the request. Such decisions are Wednesbury unreasonable and therefore ultra vires — beyond the legal power of the decision-maker.

3. Systemic Abuse by ICO and FOI Tribunals

Blanket vexatious bans imposed on individuals. ICO acting simultaneously as investigator and defender of its own decisions.Tribunal rubber-stamping without rigorous Wednesbury analysis. Failure to recognise Article 6 (fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) ECHR safeguards. Suppression of public-interest information on infrastructure, safety, environment, and governance.

4. Legal Consequences

Decisions obtained by fraud, bad faith, or irrationality are void, not merely voidable. This pierces the usual finality of judgments (res judicata). Parliament, the courts, and oversight bodies must revisit test cases (e.g. Dransfield v ICO) where these defects are present. Systemic misuse of Section 14(1) may amount to misfeasance in public office and obstruction of justice.

5. Call to Action

Parliament must hold a public inquiry into misuse of Section 14(1) FOIA. Courts must revisit key precedents tainted by Denning/Wednesbury breaches.

ICO must be held accountable for acting beyond its statutory powers. Campaigners and whistleblowers must have their rights restored and their cases re-examined.

📌 “Fraud unravels all. Where bad faith infects a legal process, no exemption, no decision, and no precedent can stand.”

http://paulcardin.substack.com