How the Duchies and Government Departments Use the Dransfield Precedent to Avoid ScrutinyThe application of the “vexatious request” exemption under Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 has increasingly extended into areas involving the British monarchy and its associated institutions.Two particularly notable examples are the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall.These historic estates generate substantial income and maintain close working relationships with government departments, yet their position within the Freedom of Information framework remains opaque.The Duchy of Lancaster is associated with the sovereign, currently King Charles III, while the Duchy of Cornwall is traditionally held by the heir to the throne, presently Prince William.Despite their public functions and significant economic activities, the Duchies have frequently maintained that they are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.The constitutional anomalyThe situation produces a striking contradiction.Government ministers who are subject to the Freedom of Information Act regularly meet with representatives of the Duchies and handle matters relating to their interests.Those ministers include the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a senior government role responsible for matters involving the Duchy estate.However, when Freedom of Information requests are submitted to government departments seeking records of these interactions, authorities can rely upon exemptions such as Section 14(1) or other provisions to withhold information.In many instances the legal reasoning underpinning these refusals traces back to the precedent established inDransfield v Information Commissioner and Devon County Council.The Dransfield mechanismThe Dransfield judgment introduced a flexible test allowing authorities to label requests “vexatious” where they consider that:the request imposes a disproportionate burden,the requester has an improper motive,the request forms part of a campaign, orthe request lacks serious purpose or value.In practice this test allows authorities to refuse requests without considering whether the information itself should be disclosed.The focus shifts instead to the behaviour of the requester.This mechanism has increasingly been used across multiple public authorities, including regulatory bodies, local councils, and government departments.A barrier around powerThe effect is the creation of what critics describe as a “constitutional blind spot.”Information concerning the interaction between government and royal institutions may fall into a grey area where:the Duchies claim they are not subject to FOIA,government departments refuse requests under FOIA exemptions, andthe Information Commissioner’s Office supports those refusals.The result is a closed loop of institutional protection, where scrutiny becomes extremely difficult.The wider patternEvidence suggests that the Dransfield precedent has been cited repeatedly by public authorities seeking to refuse requests concerning politically sensitive topics.Authorities known to have relied upon the precedent include:central government departmentslocal authoritiesregulatory bodieslaw enforcement agenciesThe precedent has therefore evolved from a single tribunal ruling into a systemic mechanism used across the UK public sector.A question of democratic accountabilityThe Freedom of Information Act was designed to strengthen public oversight of government and ensure transparency in the exercise of public power.Yet when the Dransfield precedent is used to block requests concerning institutions linked to the monarchy or government ministers, the effect is to limit scrutiny in precisely those areas where transparency may be most important.The paradox is that the precedent enabling this restriction originates from a case brought by Alan M Dransfield, whose original request concerned a public safety issue involving a pedestrian bridge in Exeter.What began as an attempt by a citizen to obtain safety information has since evolved into a legal doctrine frequently used to restrict access to information across the public sector.ConclusionThe use of the Dransfield precedent in matters touching on royal institutions highlights a deeper constitutional issue.If requests relating to powerful institutions can be dismissed as “vexatious,” the Freedom of Information system risks becoming less a mechanism for transparency and more a shield protecting authority from scrutiny.Alan