The Information Tribunal: up to its neck in appeals

The Information Tribunal is the government body that hears appeals against decisions made by the Information Commissioner's Office on Freedom of Information issues. Information from the Tribunal shows that the amount of decisions is increasing, but not at a sufficient pace to have prevented a massive backlog of pending appeals from developing.

When we started the blog, we reported on all of the Tribunal's decisions each month. Luckily we didn't make any promises to do this because, despite our sterling efforts, the last time we were able to achieve this feat was in December 2006 (see the December 2006 report). Since then, the amount of decisions seems to have just gone up and up.

A quick look at the Tribunal's decisions page supports the impression of an increased amount of decisions being made: in April 2007 there were 7 decisions, in January 2007 there were 6 and in December 2006 there were 4. In May 2007 so far, there have been 3 decisions. (The only quiet months were February 2007, a short month in which there was 1 decision and March 2007, when there were 2.) This compares to previous months in 2006 and 2005, when the Tribunal was making 1 or 2 decisions a month. (Again, there is an exception: in August 2006 the Tribunal made 4 decisions, although that was 2 decisions each on 2 appeals before it.)

Despite this increase in decisions, a backlog in pending appeals has developed. As at 10 May 2007, there are 84 pending appeals, a substantial amount. If the Tribunal managed to achieve its peak level of decisions per month so far (7), and no further appeals came in (unlikely to say the least), it would take 12 months to clear this backlog.

We gather that the Tribunal has received extra government funds to help deal with the backlog. However, throwing money at the problem on its own will not remedy the situation, we suspect. The Tribunal will have to look at changing the ways that it deals with appeals - less hearings, for example - and maybe even measures to deter public bodies and requesters of information from those bodies from behaving in a way that makes appealing against decisions popular or necessary.