UK government cannot rely on blanket ban to deny drone strike FOI requests

The UK government cannot rely on a blanket ban, on grounds of national security, to deny requests for information about drone strikes against British jihadis, a tribunal has ruled.

While the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) dismissed attempts to obtain legal advice given to the Prime Minister before drone strikes were carried out by the RAF in Syria in 2015, the court said the government could not rely on a blanket ban, The Guardian reports.

It was also revealed that the Information Commissioner’s Office had accepted assurances from the government that the material was exempt from the FOI regime — without even having read the documents in the case.

Rights Watch (UK) brought the challenge after RAF drone strikes were made against two British men: Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin.

David Cameron, who was Prime Minister at the time, said he had relied on legal advice from Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC, who assured him the practice was “entirely lawful”.

Mr Wright said last year that “specific” evidence of a terror plot threatening the UK is not required before a drone strike may be launched against suspects overseas.

The government argued that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 s.23 provides an absolute exemption, but the tribunal rejected its argument.

It declared: “Although we accept that the disaggregated information … can be said to relate to , Parliament did not intend such information to be covered by the absolute section 23 exemption.”

Yasmine Ahmed, the executive director of Rights Watch (UK), said: “This is a significant pushback against the government’s expansive claims of secrecy that would have allowed it to claim absolute secrecy and suppress information that had merely passed through the hands of the security services, corroding the public’s right to information.

“The government on notice: referencing the security services or them having sight of information does not hand public bodies a blank cheque to veto scrutiny of their actions, and they cannot do so and expect the information commissioner, courts and public to acquiesce.”