71. The relevant date for considering the PIBT was considered in Montague v ICO
and Department for Business and Trade [2022] UKUT 104 (AAC). At para 58 -60
the UT concluded that the correct time for determining the PIBT is the date the
public authority makes its decision on the request which has been made to it
and that this does not include any later decision made by the public authority
reviewing the refusal decision
72. The UT in All Party Group on Extraordinary Rendition v IC [2013] UKUT 560 (para
149) said:“...that when assessing competing public interests under FOIA the correct approach
is to identify the actual harm or prejudice that the proposed disclosure would (or
would be likely to or may) cause and the actual benefits its disclosure would (or
would be likely to or may) confer or promote. This...requires an appropriately
detailed identification, proof, explanation and examination of both (a) the harm or
prejudice, and (b) benefits that the proposed disclosure would (or would be likely to
or may) cause or promote.
73. In Department for Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner [2016] EWCA
Civ 758 at para 55 Lloyd Jones J held:“It is clearly important that appropriate consideration should be given to the
opinion of the qualified person at some point in the process of balancing
competing public interests under section 36. No doubt the weight which is given to
this consideration will reflect the Tribunal's own assessment of the matters to which
the opinion relates. Provided this is done, it does not seem to me to matter greatly
whether it is taken into account at the outset or at a later stage. Between
paragraphs [207] and [222] of its determination the First-tier Tribunal set out what
it considered to be the relevant considerations but these did not include the opinion
of the qualified person. There is, therefore, nothing in its determination which
indicates that any weight was given to the opinion of the qualified person in this
case.”
74. The UT in All Party Group on Extraordinary Rendition v IC [2013] UKUT 560 (para
149) said:“...that when assessing competing public interests under FOIA the correct approach
is to identify the actual harm or prejudice that the proposed disclosure would (or
would be likely to or may) cause and the actual benefits its disclosure would (or
would be likely to or may) confer or promote. This … requires an appropriately
detailed identification, proof, explanation and examination of both (a) the harm or
20