This week, a tribunal ruled that the Home Office was wrong to refuse us information on modern slavery reconsiderations under the guise that it would be published ‘at a future date’.
Reconsideration data is crucial, as it reveals how many survivors of modern slavery are likely living without the support they are entitled to after being wrongly rejected by the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) in error.
Previously, reconsideration data was provided to us and showed a vast majority of refused trafficking victims were later found to have been wrongly given a negative decision at appeal. As many as 79% of refused victims and potential victims had identification (re)einstated at reconsideration. These statistics generated significant concern around the quality of Home Office decision-making, and the figures were cited in Parliament, Sky News, The Guardian and other national newspaper outlets.
When we asked for the same data last year, we were denied it.
Under Section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act, public authorities can withhold information from requesters if there is already a ‘settled intention’ to publish that information at a later date. The Home Office used this exemption to refuse to give us evidence, claiming it could be published ‘at any point in an eight-month period’. The public authority did not outline what checks needed to happen to allow for publication.
In the meantime, we were contacted by another organisation who had been given similar data by the Home Office, one month after refusing our request. This drew the department’s reasoning for rejection in question.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) ruled in the Home Office’s favour. Yet, once in front of a tribunal, it was clear that evidence accepted by the ICO did not prove the Home Office planned to publish reconsideration data before we emailed them. More likely, our email triggered a decision to publish the information. In the full ruling below, the judge said “the evidence… does not, in our view, demonstrate that the intention to publish existed before the request was made”.
Whilst the demands of civil society should be taken into account when producing public data, the publication of statistics must be as part of efforts to improve transparency through controlled release, rather than as a loophole to avoid government embarrassment.
After Exploitation’s director, Maya Esslemont, attended to hearing with prior advice from the fantastic Maurice Frankel at the Campaign for Freedom of Information.
The original decision notice, issued by the Information Commissioner, has been replaced to reflect that this data should have been provided nearly a year ago, and the ICO should not have backed the the Home Office should have granted us this data in the first instance nearly a year ago.
After Exploitation’s Director, Maya Esslemont, said:
“Whilst this is a positive outcome, it should not require legal proceedings in order to get a correct decision from the Information Commissioner’s Office. Due to a lack of public data and transparency around the government’s performance on modern slavery, many non-profits are dependent on Freedom of Information requests. The ICO’s failure to side with requesters, even when public authorities provide little convincing evidence, undermines the trust civil society has in the democratic process. We are continually approached by community groups and charities disheartened by freedom of information rejections. They often feel like they will not get timely support if an FOI is refused, even if the reason for gatekeeping information is clearly unfounded.
We hope cases like this can demonstrate an urgent need for more robust enforcement from the ICO. We also hope the positive outcome can encourage organisations working in human rights and modern slavery to take determined action to secure FOI evidence where it supports advocacy, research and campaigns.”
Read the full decision below:
After Exploitation 