The First-tier Tribunal has dismissed an appeal against the Northern Ireland Prison Service's (NIPS) refusal to disclose how many X-ray body scans of prisoners produced a positive indication and how many led to the recovery of contraband, finding that the figures would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime and the maintenance of prison security under section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
In Alan Jenkins v The Information Commissioner and Northern Ireland Prison Service [2026] UKFTT 1297 (GRC), a panel chaired by Brian Kennedy KC with specialist members Susan Wolf and Emma Yates affirmed Decision Notice IC-282786-T7V3, in which the Commissioner had upheld NIPS's reliance on section 31(1)(a), (b) and (f).
The request, submitted by Jenkins's representatives in October 2023, sought three figures on the X-ray body scanners introduced into the Northern Ireland prison estate in spring 2023: the number of scans carried out, the number of positive indications, and the number of occasions on which contraband was subsequently recovered.
NIPS, acting through the Department of Justice (Northern Ireland), disclosed that 5,866 scans had been completed between March and October 2023 but withheld the other two figures, arguing that they would reveal the effectiveness of anti-smuggling measures and so prejudice the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension and prosecution of offenders, and security and good order in prisons.
Jenkins argued that disclosure would promote transparency and accountability and allow scrutiny of whether scanning was being carried out in line with published policy. During the appeal he relied on correspondence from separate judicial review proceedings acknowledging that prisoners returning from temporary release may be a recognised cohort for scanning under local search strategies, which he said showed the issue extended beyond his own circumstances.
Section 31 is a qualified, prejudice-based exemption. Under the test in Hogan v Information Commissioner, approved by the Court of Appeal in DWP v Information Commissioner, the authority must show that the prejudice claimed is real, actual and of substance, that there is a causal link between disclosure and that prejudice, and that the risk is real and significant rather than remote. Where the exemption is engaged, section 2(2)(b) requires the public interest in maintaining it to outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
The tribunal accepted that the request sought aggregate statistics rather than operational manuals, security procedures, intelligence assessments or deployment methodology. It held, however, that it did not follow that statistical information could not itself be operationally sensitive.
The figures concerned the practical outcomes of a measure deployed specifically to detect internally concealed items and were properly characterised as effectiveness data rather than policy. Disclosure would reveal not only how often positive indications were recorded but how often they resulted in a recovery, and that would assist anyone seeking to assess the effectiveness, limitations or vulnerabilities of prison anti-smuggling measures.
The panel stressed that NIPS did not need to show that prejudice would inevitably occur or that criminal actors would certainly exploit the information, only that there was a real and significant risk on the lower "would be likely to" limb. It also noted that disclosure under FOIA is disclosure to the world at large and could not be assessed by reference to the appellant's own purposes or confined to those acting lawfully.
The mosaic effect was treated as a relevant but not determinative factor, with the tribunal cautioning that the concept cannot relieve an authority of the need to show a real and reasoned basis for the prejudice claimed.
On the public interest, the tribunal went further in the appellant's favour than the Commissioner had. It accepted that body scanning is an intrusive measure in a custodial setting, that there is a legitimate interest in transparency about whether it is achieving its objectives, and that the judicial review correspondence demonstrated a wider public interest than an individual grievance. It said Jenkins had identified a broader interest than was fully reflected in the Commissioner's assessment and attached greater weight to disclosure accordingly.
Against that, the panel gave considerable weight to preventing drugs and prohibited articles entering prisons, with its implications for prisoner welfare, staff safety and institutional order. It observed that the policies and guidance governing the scanners were already published, so the request went to operational success rather than undisclosed decision-making criteria, which weakened the disclosure side of the balance. It also took into account, without treating it as determinative, that complaints procedures, the Ombudsman and judicial review offered alternative routes for scrutiny.
Describing the case as "not an unarguable appeal", the tribunal concluded unanimously that the exemption was engaged, that disclosure would be likely to prejudice the interests in section 31(1)(a), (b) and (f), and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed that in disclosure. The Commissioner had made no error of law and the decision notice was affirmed.
