Information relating to decisions made by the CPS not to prosecute Cyril Smith for offences against children to be disclosed following tribunal ruling

Cyril Smith

A tribunal has found that the decision of the the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) to back the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in its decision not to disclose information relating to decisions made over time not to prosecute Cyril Smith for offences against children is not in accordance with the law and ordered disclosure.

In a freedom of information request (FOI) a journalist, Mr Corke, sought disclosure from the CPS but the CPS refused to provide some information relying on exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, namely section 30(1)(c) (information held for the purpose of criminal proceedings), section 40(2) (unfair disclosure of personal data) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege).

Mr Corke complained to the ICO but the ICO backed the CPS and concluded that the issue was finely balanced, noting the public concern
about abuse of power and the apparent historic failure to prosecute high profile figures, however deciding that "disclosure could well serve as a deterrent to [the CPS] documenting honest and frank views in future".

The Tribunal disagreed and in ruling that the balance of public interest lay in favour of disclosure that the ICO undervalued the professionalism and rigour of CPS lawyers in approaching the question of providing advice on the decision whether or not to prosecute – a task which goes to the heart of their professional duty.

The Tribunal agreed there was a need to ensure legal professional privilege was protected and considered the possible damage to legal professional privilege and the rights it protects by disclosure. However, in the light of the very unusual circumstances of this case the Tribunal concluded that the balance of public interest lay in disclosure since in the circumstances of the case there would be no significant harm
either to the principle or the specific interest protected by section 42.


The information will be redacted to protect the identities and personal data of all the young persons involved.

Appellant: Jonathan Corke
Respondent: The Information Commissioner

Heard on the papers: Ashford Tribunal Hearing Centre
Date of Hearing: 15 May 2014

Before
Chris Hughes
Judge
and
Mike Jones and David Wilkinson
Tribunal Members

Date of Decision: 3 June 2014

Download