The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) has dismissed a Freedom of Information appeal seeking disclosure of an audio recording of a Metropolitan Police misconduct hearing, finding that the detailed outcome report already published was sufficient to meet the legitimate interest in transparency.
In Rabbi Gabriel Kanter-Webber v Information Commissioner & Metropolitan Police Service [2026] UKFTT 680 (GRC), determined on the papers on 12 May 2026, the Tribunal upheld the Metropolitan Police Service's reliance on section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, concluding that disclosure of the recording would not be necessary under Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR and would in any event be unfair to the data subjects whose personal data was captured within it.
The appellant made a request to the MPS in June 2023 for a transcript or, failing that, an audio recording of a misconduct hearing concerning PC Thomas, the outcome of which had been published in May 2023. The hearing had been conducted in public pursuant to statute, without reporting restrictions.
The MPS initially refused the request under section 40(2) FOIA on personal data grounds, before later suggesting during an internal review that it did not hold the recording at all. That position was subsequently corrected during the Information Commissioner's investigation, when the MPS confirmed it did hold the audio and advanced reliance on both section 32(1)(c) FOIA (court records) and section 40(2) FOIA.
The Commissioner upheld the refusal under section 32, finding that the misconduct panel constituted a "court" for FOIA purposes. However, while the appeal was pending before the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal issued binding authority in the related case of Kanter-Webber v Information Commissioner and the Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary [2025] UKUT 171 (AAC), holding that police misconduct panels do not constitute courts for the purposes of section 32 FOIA. Section 32 therefore fell away, and the appeal proceeded solely on the section 40(2) exemption.
The Tribunal, constituted by Tribunal Judge Mornington, Tribunal Member Wolf and Tribunal Member Pepperell, applied the well-established three-stage legitimate interests test under Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR.
Legitimate interest: The Tribunal accepted without difficulty that there was a legitimate public interest in transparency and accountability in police disciplinary proceedings, describing the appellant's submissions on this point as "serious and principled."
Necessity: The Tribunal was not satisfied that disclosure of the audio recording was reasonably necessary to meet that interest. It placed considerable weight on the quality of the published outcome report, a 17-page document which set out the allegations, summarised the evidence, addressed credibility findings and explained the panel's reasoning, and observed that the legitimate interest in transparency is "directed primarily towards enabling the public to understand how accountability has been exercised, rather than towards enabling independent, line-by-line re-evaluation of witness testimony by members of the public at large."
The Tribunal rejected the submission that Article 6(1)(f) requires disclosure wherever it is theoretically possible that more information might permit a deeper or alternative analysis.
Rights and freedoms of data subjects: The Tribunal further concluded that, even had necessity been established, disclosure would be unfair under Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR. It drew a clear distinction between a "bounded and time-limited procedural event" — the public hearing — and permanent, unrestricted FOIA disclosure of an official audio record "capable of indefinite replay and redistribution." Participants, and in particular witnesses not themselves the subject of the proceedings, could not fairly be treated as having accepted that their evidence, including their manner of delivery and responses under questioning, would be subject to enduring and unrestricted dissemination.
The Tribunal also gave weight to systemic concerns, noting that routine disclosure of audio recordings of misconduct hearings under FOIA risked making witnesses more guarded and undermining the candour and effectiveness of future disciplinary proceedings.
The Tribunal was careful to confine its reasoning to the facts of the case, expressly noting that its conclusion was not a general rule. It acknowledged that there may be cases where the published material is so limited, or the public interest so acute, that disclosure of a verbatim record is required. However, it suggests that where a police misconduct hearing has been held in public and a detailed outcome report has been published in accordance with the statutory scheme, that combination is capable of satisfying the legitimate interest in transparency without the additional disclosure of a verbatim audio record.
The MPS's handling of the initial request, including the inconsistent position on whether the recording was held, drew implicit criticism in the judgment, though this did not affect the outcome.
