Convictions for preventing information being released under the Freedom of Information Act are incredibly rare.
Jump to this week’s Freedom of Information stories…
The main challenge is proving (’beyond reasonable doubt’) that the person deleted, defaced, concealed etc. information with the intent of preventing it being released under FOI.
There’s only been three prosecutions since the Act came into force more than 20 years ago – one unsuccessful and, until this week, one successful.
Former Mid and East Antrim Council chief executive Anne Donaghy was convicted on Wednesday (August 26) of deleting an email and having procured the deletion of an email to prevent the disclosure of information through the Freedom of Information Act.
Donaghy, 56, of Clonmore Road, Dungannon, was cleared of a third charge of having attempted to delete a second email.
Aaron McClelland, the council’s former director of corporate services, was cleared of a single charge of having attempted to delete an email.
Delivering her judgment, Judge Alana McSorley found Donaghy had been concerned about the perception that she was close to the DUP, and was under mounting political pressure by the point she ordered her personal assistant to delete the email to Dame Arlene.
The judge noted Donaghy’s response in a recording to being told of a hard copy of the email was among factors that led her to the “irretrievable conclusion” she had intended to prevent the email being disclosed.
Donaghy was fined £750 for each of the two charges she was convicted of.
In a statement issued after the judgement Anne Donaghy’s legal team at KRW Law said: “Our client maintains her innocence of these allegations. She will vehemently contest today’s findings.”
A request for information and growing questions
The case concerned an email from Donaghy to then first minister Arlene Foster in February 2021, forwarding a letter she had sent to the Cabinet Office around the administering of the post-Brexit treaty, the Northern Ireland Protocol at Larne Port and alleged threats to council workers in 2021. The letter was forwarded to nine DUP representatives in total.
On February 8, the council received an FOI request from Belfast Live journalist Brendan Hughes asking for internal and external correspondence about the NI Protocol and alleged threats to staff. The request was refused on the basis of health and safety, and security.
In April, Donaghy appeared before the Stormont Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. She was questioned by Alliance MLA John Blair about her letter to the Cabinet Office, and why she had sought the views of DUP representatives, but not those of others parties.
The prosecution said by the end of April, there was “increasing political and media scrutiny”, and also described how Donaghy was concerned she was being perceived as being “the DUP’s person”.
Donaghy’s defence contended she had been concerned about Dame Arlene’s personal email address getting into the public domain, as there had been an issue with information being leaked from the council.
An audio recording taken on a pen belonging to Donaghy’s assistant, had recorded the chief executive asking her to delete the email to Ms Foster. Told that “upstairs”, with reference to the FOI team in the council, had a copy of the email of Ms Foster, Donaghy is heard saying: “Oh no. Who sent that?”
The prosecution described Donaghy as reacting “in dismay”, and argued she had not known that a hard copy of the email had been kept.
Meanwhile in freedom of information matters in Scotland
You’d be forgiven for thinking the entirety of FOI action in Scotland revolves around the internal workings of the Scottish Government.
The (becoming evermore literal) never-ending battle between the government and the Scottish Information Commissioner continues.
Quick recap (a less quick recap):
- An investigation into Nicola Sturgeon’s conduct in relation to complaints about her predecessor Alex Salmond finds she didn’t breach the ministerial code.
- A redacted report is released.
- FOI number 1 asks for the information gathered in the investigation – it’s refused as not held, overturned, refused with information withheld, partially overturned, the deadline for releasing that information is missed and a court admonishes the government for this failure. Redacted information is released, some has to be taken down for more redactions.
- FOI number 2 asks for all communications related to the court appeal about the information in FOI number 1 being held. It’s partially refused, overturned, appealed, and a court finds the information shouldn’t be released as it’s subject to legal professional privilege (and criticises the Scottish Information Commissioner).
- FOI number 3 asks for all the legal advice related to the court appeal about the information in FOI number 1 being held – it’s refused, overturned, and then the information is released. Then the Scottish Information Commissioner says that wasn’t actually all released.
Now what?
David Hamilton, the Scottish Information Commissioner, now wants to challenge the decision about FOI number 2 at the Supreme Court.
“My decision to seek leave to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court has not been taken lightly, It is my view that this ruling runs contrary to the Parliament’s clear intention behind the FOI Act.
“There are significant implications and risks placed on the public’s right to access information because of this ruling – it is therefore clearly in the public interest that I seek to challenge this at the Supreme Court.”
David Hamilton, the Scottish Information Commissioner
I’m all for transparency but I think the Scottish Information Commissioner might be being a touch over-dramatic.
The Scottish Parliament included an exemption for information covered by legal professional privilege, subject to the public interest test.
With legal professional privilege described as “a fundamental human right on which the administration of justice as a whole depends”, the ruling found the public interest needs to be really strong to outweigh this.
The Scottish Information Commissioner has said he’s concerned the ruling substantially limits the scope for the balance of the public interest weighing in favour of disclosure for this exemption. He adds that it goes on to give legal professional privileged information a status beyond that intended by the provisions of the FOI Act.
The court said it can see cases where public interest in disclosure outweighs confidentiality (serious wrongdoing, ignoring legal advice, or the harm likely to be caused is slight (particularly with historic issues)).
The issue seems to be no one was making those arguments. The Commissioner’s decision seems to be that the information, which he hadn’t seen, contains nothing particularly unusual or unexpected (the court describes this as “unwarranted speculation”), so arguments for not disclosing it are less compelling. But also that there’s a clear public interest in the topic the information relates to that can only be satisfied by its disclosure.
As the judge points out, what’s of interest to the public isn’t necessarily the same as what’s in the public interest.
The public might be interested in any detail about the investigation into Nicola Sturgeon’s conduct in relation to complaints about her predecessor Alex Salmond. But this case is quite a way from those original issues
“However, in what way will communications relating to whether material gathered during that investigation was “held” by the government in terms of section 3 of the Act contribute to that debate, either at all, or to such an extent as to justify overriding the strong public interest in LPP?”
Court of Session, The Scottish Ministers against The Scottish Information Commissioner, [2026] CSIH 15
The reasoning for overturning the refusal in FOI number 3, the request for legal advice, was specifically about the public interest in understanding if the Scottish Government proceeded with the appeal over the information being held against legal advice (not quite, but it wasn’t enthusiastic about the government’s chances). There was no such argument here, and the judge felt it really needed that or something similar.
I’m not convinced the ruling substantially limits the scope for the balance of the public interest weighing in favour of disclosure for this exemption. It doesn’t dismiss strong public interest arguments in favour of disclosure, it says the problem is those weren’t made. Better arguments might have tipped the balance.
I also don’t think it gives legal professional privileged information a status beyond that intended by the provisions of the FOI Act.
This ruling is broadly in line with other cases involving FOI and legal privilege. It’s also in line with the Scottish Information Commissioner’s guidance on how to apply the exemption.
The point is, outside of the provisions of the FOI Act, the status of legal professional privileged information is pretty much never disclosable – “once privileged, always privileged”.
The FOI Act says sometimes that’s not absolute, it’s subject to the public interest test. Case law has said balancing these both means a slightly higher bar for that test.
Is this all a bit personal?
The Scottish Information Commissioner is also concerned the ruling could have wider implications for the application of that balancing exercise in relation to other exemptions.
Leaving aside that the balancing exercise is already similarly higher for Section 30, prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs, the decision in this case isn’t likely to be that widely applicable.
Because this case is more about the Scottish Information Commissioner than the public.
His decision was complicated as the government hadn’t shared the withheld information (they don’t have to when its legal advice relating to the FOI Act), making it harder to fully know if the exemption was correct.
The court backed the government not sharing the information. Not only to prevent the Commissioner as the regulator gaining an unfair advantage by being able to inspect FOI-related legal advice generally, but also because in this case, the Scottish Information Commissioner was the opposing party in litigation.
The Scottish Information Commissioner comes in for some criticism in the court’s decision. The judge says it seems clear the Commissioner was unhappy about not getting access to the documents, and this was an illegitimate factor influencing his decision.
The court also felt the Commissioner hadn’t weighed up the issue of him being able to order the disclosure under FOI of information he hasn’t been allowed to see, particularly because there might be an advantage to him to see them. Something that might have added to the need for a really compelling reason for allowing disclosure.
It’s not clear how much the continuing back and forth over the various FOI requests, appeals and court cases is a battle over principles and how much is now a personal desire to be proved right.
The Notes to editor section of the press release on how the Commissioner is seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court for the first time to challenge a Court of Session ruling, suggests, like many a requester facing a refusal, the Commissioner still thinks his reasoning is correct.
Rather than engaging with why the Court of Session didn’t agree with that reasoning, he basically accuses it of changing the rules.
It might be that Mr Hamilton has a slightly inflated view of his importance.
“I’m one of many regulators, one of many independent chief execs of an organisation, so I don’t understand why people are saying, ‘You’re the only one standing up’.
“What’s everyone else doing? I’m not kotowed by the government or anyone. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve got a seal downstairs from the King which says I’ve got to do my job. That’s it.
“As an ex-cop, I see legislation as a thing to be used. People can be quite reticent about doing things that can seem a bit adversarial. That’s not me. You can’t just growl, you have to bite at times.”
David Hamilton, the Scottish Information Commissioner, to the Sunday Times
The question is, does this enthusiasm for transparency and re-balancing of the public interest test more towards favouring disclosure apply widely, or is it mostly about cases involving the Scottish Government and SNP?
Everything is fine
FOI is great for checking how the implementation of various laws and policies is going. And sometimes the answer is “there is no cock up, scandal or error”.
But even if there’s no big exclusive, sometimes there’s still a fun article to be had about your lack of story.
Under section 16 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, as amended by the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Act 2024, a member of a county, county borough or community council in Wales is disqualified from being a Member of the Senedd. May’s election was the first at which the disqualification also applied to community councillors.
So, according to the rules, any serving councillors who won a seat at May’s election needed to get their written resignation to the council’s proper officer before they were sworn in as a member of the Senedd.
According to Wrexham.com, all 19 councillors identified across 21 councils managed to do this.
The site compared the dates and times of the booked oath times for all 96 members, released by the Senedd, to information from councils about when resignations were received.
Most councillors seem to have resigned at or immediately after the counts on the Friday, well before the booked oath times over the weekend.
The narrowest gap in Wales belongs to Tom Montgomery, elected for Clwyd, whose resignation from Conwy County Borough Council’s Tudno ward was received by email at 9.44am on Saturday, May 9. His booked oath slot was at 12.50pm the same day, around three hours later.
This week’s Freedom of Information stories…
Housing inconsistencies
Children could be “slipping through the cracks” after an investigation found serious gaps in how councils track homeless families placed in temporary accommodation outside their home areas, experts have warned.
All but one North West council that responded to Freedom of Information requests put in by Granada Reports had gaps or inconsistencies in its data.
Of the 33 asked, 17 acknowledged that some information was incomplete, not held, not available in a reportable format or otherwise limited.
A further 15 provided figures that when cross-checked with other councils revealed discrepancies, including placements recorded by one authority but not the other and mismatched counts.
Under Section 208 (s208) of the Housing Act, councils placing households in temporary accommodation outside their area are expected to notify the receiving authority within 14 days.
Social care assaults
More than 200 incidents of assault against social care staff have been recorded by Pembrokeshire County Council in just over three years, newly released figures reveal.
The authority says 213 incidents involving physical or verbal assaults were recorded between April 1, 2023 and July 21 this year.
Of those, 191 were recorded within Children’s Social Care and 22 within Adult Social Care.
A detailed breakdown released under the Freedom of Information Act shows that 210 of the 213 incidents were classified as physical assaults.
Play area injuries
More than half a million pounds has been paid out by Northern Ireland’s councils in compensation and fees relating to injuries sustained at playparks over the past five years – with the single largest payout setting one council back £75,000.
In total, at least 320 incidents were reported across more than 150 playparks in 11 council areas since 2021.
In response to Freedom of Information requests, seven local authorities provided compensation and fee figures to The Irish News, which totalled £567,712.55.
Building repairs
Safety fears have been raised after new figures showed 175 police buildings are in need of repairs.
Nearly 500 separate works are required at an estimated cost of over £20m.
The staggering figures were revealed in a freedom of information request from the Lib Dems to Police Scotland.
Of the 460 repairs, 57 related to fire safety, 33 were linked to security and 28 to roofing.
Staff investigations
West Norfolk Council launched five external HR investigations into its own employees in 2024 and 2025 – compared with just one in the three years before that.
Last year the council brought in outside HR firms three times, more than any other year on record, at a cost of £11,541. The year before, in 2024, two further investigations cost the council £12,204.
However in the three years before that, the authority carried out just one such investigation, in 2022, costing £2,400. There were none in 2021 or 2023.
The figures, which total £26,145 over five years, were released under the Freedom of Information Act and relate to investigations into staff conduct only, not councillors.
Peeing in the streets
Just seven fines were handed out for street urination in York in the first year of new powers being in force, despite clean ups numbering in the thousands.
It compares to the 4,891 instances of street urination removed by York’s Business Improvement District (BID) cleaning teams during the same period.
Council figures obtained through a freedom of information request showed one of the four fines was worth the full £100 penalty. The other three were paid at a discounted rate of £75 and the remaining ones went unpaid.
Fines were issued in Ordnance Lane in Fishergate and the city centre’s Museum Street, Market Street, Bridge Street and Whip Ma Whop Ma Gate. The others were issued in Acomb Road and Malton Road.
Hospital upkeep
Annual repair costs at St Helier Hospital have continued to climb, with new figures showing that over £500,000 was spent on temporary patch-up work in the first three months of this year alone.
According to official data obtained through Freedom of Information disclosures, maintenance expenditure at the site jumped by 73 per cent to £1.75 million in 2023. Since then, spending has continued to mount, reaching £1.79 million in 2024 and £1.88 million in 2025, before hitting £505,537 in the first quarter of 2026.
Local authority representatives at Sutton Council have expressed strong concern over the condition of the ageing infrastructure, warning that elements of the estate are “literally falling to pieces”.
World Cup
Domestic offences recorded in Suffolk rose by more than 20% during the 2026 FIFA World Cup period, compared with the same period last year, newly released police figures show.
Data released by Suffolk Constabulary following a Freedom of Information request from the East Anglian Daily Times shows there were 991 domestic offences recorded in Suffolk between June 11 and July 19 this year, a 20% rise from the 824 recorded domestic offences during the same dates in 2025.
The figures also reveal a 19% rise in violent domestic abuse incidents. Police recorded 756 violence against the person offences linked to domestic abuse during the 2026 World Cup period, up from 634 in the corresponding period last year.
Violent disorder
One in seven of those arrested during the violent disorder that took place in Ballymena and surrounding towns in June 2025 has since been reported to the PSNI for domestic abuse.
PSNI data show that 14 of the 100 people arrested were reported for domestic abuse in the 13 months following the riots.
The figures were released to The Detail following a freedom of information request.
Fast food crime
Hundreds of crimes including assaults, thefts and sexual offences have been reported at Worcester’s city centre McDonald’s over the past five years, but figures show only a handful resulted in charges.
In total, 253 offences have been reported at McDonald’s restaurant in The Foregate, near The Cross in Worcester city centre, in the last five financial years between 2021/22 and 2025/26.
The information has been released to the Worcester News following a Freedom of Information request which shines a light on broader issues with crime and disorder in the city centre at night.
Poor standards
Sometimes, it’s not a good idea to try to live up to your (frankly terrible) name.
Tapas Revolution – Dirty Pedro’s, at the Westfield London Shopping Centre, was given a one-star food hygiene rating in March, meaning “major improvement necessary”.
Among the most serious findings were mouse droppings beneath shelving in the service area. Other issues included dirty bins, salad dressings and juices left unrefrigerated, undated food in fridges, and an ice scoop stored with the handle touching the ice, risking contamination.
A follow-up inspection was scheduled for June 17, 2026, but it is not known whether this took place or if improvements were made, as no further documentation was provided under the Freedom of Information (FOI) request that revealed the findings.
Green spaces
Freedom of Information figures obtained by Vonhaus, the UK home and garden retailer, show that combined spending, on maintaining public parks and green spaces, across six councils with comparable data increased from £31.1 million in 2023/24 to £35.8 million in 2025/26.
Sheffield reported the highest expenditure among the councils compared, spending £12.6 million in 2025/26. This was followed by Bristol at £9.1 million and Nottingham at £4.7 million.
Nottingham recorded the largest rise, with spending increasing by 58% from just under £3 million in 2023/24. Leicester’s expenditure rose by 24%, while Coventry reported a 15% increase.
At the same time, complaints about public parks and green spaces fell by 26% across nine councils with comparable figures.
Office spaces
A possible continuing theme of newly-elected Reform politicians and office makeovers to bag a bigger office.
Following the Holyrood election, all six parties represented entered into negotiations regarding office space allocation, which is spread across several floors in the MSP block.
Emails released through a Freedom of Information request from the Scottish Parliament show Max Bannerman, Reform regional MSP for the Highlands and Islands and the party’s business manager, told the Facilities Management team on Thursday, May 28: “After taking soundings from the leader and his office, I’m afraid the present proposals are not acceptable to our group.”
David McGill, the Scottish Parliament’s chief executive, responded: “I have discussed your party’s concerns with [Redacted]. While we can see little in the way of manoeuvre from the proposal that other parties are content with, we have identified a couple of potential initiatives that could help sweeten the position for you.”
The next day, Bannerman accepted the office allocation with “all the caveats and guarantees which you have outlined to me just earlier”.
Multiple sources told The National that the issue that held up negotiations was Reform Scotland leader Malcolm Offord’s request for a double office space, with the demolition of walls to create it.
Missing art
Works of art including of Benjamin Disraeli, and the leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade, are among those missing from the Houses of Parliament, it can be revealed.
A portrait photograph of Queen Victoria’s favourite prime minister is one of dozens of artworks which House of Commons authorities are looking for, along with a 19th century engraving print of William Wilberforce.
They are on a list of more than 65 artworks that have been misplaced since the start of 2024, which has been released after a Freedom of Information request by the Press Association.
Number 10 North
Everybody wants to know how much having a Prime Ministerial outpost in Manchester city centre is costing. And ‘how much did that cost?’ is usually a good FOI request.
While the office space at Heron House, already used by the Government, comes at no extra cost, the new costs have included £19,000 on IT and communications infrastructure, while physically branding the No 10 office cost £10,527.20.
An order of “sundries” from Amazon totalled £971.86, with five sign frames costing £17.20 and works to the office space £8,799.
The site also has its own replica Number 10 door, along with a cardboard cut-out of Larry the cat. The freedom of information request reveals the cost of buying and transporting the door to Manchester was £978.87.
The Express had less success. It had asked for the spend on moving staff to the building in Manchester – which will take over economic growth work from the Treasury, transporting the Prime Minister back and forth from London, and the cost of any extra police and security presence and where it is from.
That request was refused on the basis of Section 24(1) (National Security) and Section 31(1)(a) (prevention of crime).
Finally, on a smaller scale, the flower arrangements displayed on the table on the day of National Executive Committee meeting cost £127 from Stem in Manchester, based on an FOI request from journalist Leigh Jones, a 400% premium on just some bouquets from Co-op.
Photo by Steve A Johnson on Pexels
