Alan Dransfield's Blog

In Stocker v Stocker (SvS) dated 3rd April 2019 v the
Supreme Court (SC) concluded, inter alia, that lower court judges unlawfully
fettered their reasoning when relying on an external definition, absent
context, upon which their judgement turned, especially when the contentious
issue was proven to be true.

Using the same rationale put by the SC in S v S, it must
follow that the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court misdirected itself and erred
in law when deciding Dransfield (2015 EWCA /454 Civ because
not only can ‘vexatious’ not be defined contextually as ‘manifestly
unreasonable’, but it has been subsequently proved that the issue of
vexatiousness never existed in the first place, within Dransfield,
and also that disclosure of the information sought was proved not to be
manifestly unreasonable.

Therefore, both logic and justice dictate that the SC
voluntarily revisit Dransfield and strike out all lower court
decisions blocking Dransfield’s access to information that has now been
freely placed in the public domain on the grounds that publication is justified
not least on grounds of health and safety, as originally stated by
Dransfield in his FoIA request.

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013939/fs50610253.pdf

“83. The term “vexatious” is not defined in the FOIA. The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered the issue of vexatious requests in the Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield (UKUT 440 (AAC), 28 January 2013).1 The UT commented that “vexatious” could be defined as the “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure”. This definition clearly establishes that the concepts of proportionality and justification are relevant to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious.”

Email sent – 23/08/2018 18:53

Attn The President of the Upper Tribunal Mr Justice
Charles

Dear Sir

In light of last nights documentary on the Channel 4 Dispatches programme ref the Carillion Collapse (CC), I
ask the UT President to revisit his earlier decision that Judge Wikely had
acted within the law ref Case
GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO. I reiterate Judge Wikely was complicit with the
ICO to pervert the course of justice ref the Dransfield Vexatious Court Precedence.

In mid 2016 my appeal to the UT relating to 6 PFI schools
in Exeter was rejected based on the Court of Appeal C3/1855/2015. Moreover and
more importantly the Dispatches programme supports my claims the 6 PFI school in
Exeter were/are substandard and unsafe. It also supports my allegation that you
have acted unlawfully by not taking my allegation against Judge Wikely
seriously. In essence, you have been complicit with Judge Wikely and the ICO to
cover up serious crimes and to circumvent the ICO.

Suggestion

Revisit your decision
ref my complaints against Judge Wikely ref GIA/3037/2011.
Revist the UT
decision to dismiss my appeal to the UT.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

From: <casework@ico.org.uk>
Date: 15 August 2018 at 10:09:17 BST
To: <alanmdransfield@gmail.com>

Subject: Complaint to ICO re: Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea[Ref. FS50772688]

15th August 2018

Case Reference Number FS50772688

Dear Mr Dransfield

I am writing with regard to your email of 1 August 2018 in which you explain
that you wish bring a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
about the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s handling of a freedom of
information request.

As you will re-call, we wrote to you earlier this year on 15 March 2018 and
explained that we were not prepared to accept any further complaints from you
under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A copy of our
letter is attached.

We do not consider the circumstances to have changed since that letter was
issued. Therefore, we consider your application to the ICO in relation to
the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s handling of this request to also
be frivolous and/or vexatious for the purposes of section 50(2)(c) of FOIA. We
will therefore not be accepting this complaint.

Yours sincerely

The Information Commissioner’s Office