The UK Government’s Use of Section 30: A Legal Shield or a Stonewall Against Transparency?
In the age of open data and democratic accountability, freedom of information is a cornerstone of public trust. Yet, the UK government’s frequent invocation of Section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 has sparked growing concern among journalists, campaigners, and citizens who see it as a tool for stonewalling legitimate public scrutiny.
What Is Section 30?
Section 30 allows public authorities to withhold information related to criminal investigations and proceedings. It covers:
Section 30(1)(a–c): Information held for the purpose of determining whether someone should be charged, prosecuted, or is guilty of an offence.
- Section 30(2): Information obtained from confidential sources, including whistleblowers or informants.
- Section 30(3): The right to neither confirm nor deny the existence of such information.
This exemption is qualified, meaning authorities must apply a public interest test before refusing disclosure. But critics argue this test is often interpreted narrowly, favoring secrecy over openness.
How Section 30 Is Used to Block Access
Government departments have repeatedly used Section 30 to deny FOI requests on high-profile issues, including:
Police misconduct investigations
Internal reviews of controversial policies
Allegations of corruption or abuse of power
Even when investigations are long concluded, authorities often claim that releasing information could “prejudice future proceedings” or “undermine law enforcement,” despite no clear evidence of such risks.
The Problem with Overreach
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has warned that Section 30 should not be used as a blanket exemption. Yet, in practice, it’s become a default shield against uncomfortable disclosures. This undermines:
Public accountability: Citizens can’t assess whether justice was seserved.
Journalistic inquiry: Reporters face barriers to uncovering wrongdoing.
Democratic oversight: Parliament and watchdogs struggle to hold institutions to account.
Calls for Reform
Transparency advocates argue for:
Stricter limits on how long Section 30 can be applied after investigations end.
Clearer guidance on the public interest tetest.
Independent review mechanisms when FOI requests are denied under Section 30.
Without reform, the exemption risks becoming a permanent wall of silence, shielding the state from scrutiny rather than protecting justice.
Final Thoughts
Section 30 was designed to protect the integrity of investigations—not to suppress inconvenient truths. When used excessively or without transparency, it erodes public trust and weakens democratic institutions. The government must strike a better balance between security and openness, or risk turning a safeguard into a stonewall.
Add comment
Comments