GO north from the Strand, past the Gothic revival drama of the Royal Courts of Justice and you’ll come to a lifeless thing made of steel and glass called the Rolls Building.
It doesn’t look like much from the outside and inside is more passport office than important court, but the Rolls Building has hosted a number of high-profile cases involving Prince Harry, Johnny Rotten, Ed Sheeran and Cliff Richards, to name a few.
On Tuesday, it held something which outwardly might appear quite dull. Tommy Sheppard has been battling the Cabinet Office for four years to release polling it conducted back in 2019 on the strength of the Union.
So what? It's miles out of date and of practically no relevance anymore, you might say.
But Sheppard’s dogged campaign has been borne out of the belief this is a crucial test case in the UK’s Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.
The UK Government can refuse to release information if it is informing the development of policy, which is quite a broad exemption, though you might not expect it to be invoked in something as static as the Westminster Government’s opposition to its own disintegration.
READ MORE: 'Common sense' to release secret Union polling, court told
Sheppard’s argument is if they can invoke such a distinction in that case, it effectively gives the Government a “licence for secrecy” on anything they like.
The SNP MP's lawyer, Raphael Hogarth of 11KBW, said the Cabinet Office’s arguments would give the Government an “absurdly wide” ability to refuse to publish information.
Hogarth is no slouch; he used to be a leader writer for The Times and a researcher at the Institute for Government before being called to the bar in 2020, which is about as bad a year to be called as you can get.
In court six of the Rolls Building (an entirely forgettable-looking room, which is not worth describing) he faced off against the Cabinet Office’s man Ivan Hare KC, of Blackstone Chambers.
Those eagerly following this case will note that man is not James Eadie KC, arguably the UK Government’s number one lawyer in cases like this.
No harm to the very well-credentialled Hare, but the UK Government were so keen to have their top choice in court that they unsuccessfully tried to have the hearing postponed until he was available.
Judge Alastair Wright, a softly spoken Scot, presided over the hearing in which he chided the UK Government for the delays experienced by Sheppard in his attempts to force the release of the information, including their attempt to have Tuesday's hearing pushed back.
Judge Wright had allowed the UK Government’s request for an appeal against an earlier ruling by a lower court, which ordered the Cabinet Office to release the polling and appeared to have more sympathy with their arguments.
Closing the hearing at around 4.20pm, Judge Wright said he would decide whether to send the matter back to the First Tier Tribunal (what the Cabinet Office wants) or uphold the judgment of that court in an earlier hearing (what Sheppard wants).
In any case, he pledged to do it quickly, seeming as bemused as most observers of this case have been with its frequent delays and twists.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel