FOI and public participation in governance
✅ FOI and Public Participation in Governance
🔹 What is FOI?
Freedom of Information laws grant the public the right to access information held by government agencies. This promotes transparency, accountability, and empowers citizens to engage more meaningfully in governance.
🔹 Public Participation
Public participation means involving citizens in decision-making processes, from policy formulation to implementation. FOI supports this by:
Providing access to information that shapes public debate
Enabling informed advocacy and scrutiny of government actions
Enhancing trust between the government and citizens
🔹 How FOI Facilitates Participation
Informed Decision-Making — Citizens get data to support or challenge policies.
Transparency & Accountability — FOI reduces corruption and misuse of power.
Engagement Tools — Media, civil society, and individuals use FOI to mobilize participation.
Legal Right — FOI empowers citizens legally to demand disclosure.
🧑⚖️ Key Case Law Examples
1. The Guardian and the UK Government (DSD Case) [2015] UKSC 22
Facts: The Guardian requested documents on government surveillance under FOI. The government refused citing national security.
Held: The Supreme Court held that FOI refusals on national security grounds require specific evidence of harm, not vague assertions.
Importance: Strengthened FOI’s role by emphasizing transparency unless a clear, justified exception exists, thus supporting public participation based on factual info.
2. Department of Health v Information Commissioner and British Medical Association [2009] UKHL 3
Facts: BMA requested infection rate data from the government. The government withheld citing confidentiality and national security.
Held: The House of Lords ruled FOI exemptions must be narrowly construed, promoting disclosure.
Importance: Affirmed the principle that FOI serves public interest, enabling public scrutiny of healthcare governance.
3. R v Information Commissioner, Ex parte Mosley [2008] EWCA Civ 446
Facts: Mosley challenged disclosure of his private life details under FOI.
Held: Court balanced privacy against public interest. It recognized FOI’s role in public participation but upheld privacy rights where justified.
Importance: Showed FOI is not absolute; it must be balanced with other rights, but public interest remains a key driver.
4. Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199
Facts: ABC sought access to information on animal cruelty for investigative journalism.
Held: The High Court supported access to information that advances public debate on ethical governance.
Importance: Reinforced FOI’s role in enabling citizens to participate in governance via media scrutiny.
5. R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21
Facts: A FOI request sought letters between Prince Charles and government ministers.
Held: Supreme Court ruled in favor of disclosure, emphasizing transparency and public participation in understanding government influence.
Importance: Highlighted FOI’s critical role in holding power to account and enabling informed citizenry.
6. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010) 3 SCR 72
Facts: The CBC sought access to government records concerning national security.
Held: The Supreme Court of Canada emphasized FOI as a tool for democratic participation but recognized limited exceptions.
Importance: International example reinforcing FOI’s democratic value balanced with responsible disclosure.
📋 Summary: Key FOI Principles Supporting Public Participation
| Principle | Explanation | Case Example(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency as default | Governments should disclose info unless strong reasons not to | DSD case, Dept of Health |
| Narrow interpretation of exceptions | Exemptions like national security must be justified specifically | Dept of Health, DSD case |
| Balancing competing rights | FOI rights balanced against privacy and security | Mosley case |
| Enabling media role | FOI supports investigative journalism and public debate | Lenah Game Meats |
| Public interest overrides secrecy | Public interest in disclosure outweighs secrecy except in exceptional cases | Evans v Attorney General |
RELATED Blog
0 comments