Information as, although the exemption in that section was engaged, the Public Interest Test favoured disclosure; and b. the Authority was, however, entitled to rely on section 42(1) to withhold one paragraph of the Requested Information which it had sought to withhold in reliance on that section. 15. As the Requestor had confirmed that he was not seeking disclosure of any personal data, the Decision Notice did not address the Authority’s application of section 40(2) to withhold relevant aspects of the Requested Information (some names, email addresses and phone numbers). 16. The Decision Notice required the Authority to disclose the Requested Information, save for the aspects of it which it had withheld under section 40(2) and section 42(1). The appeal The grounds of appeal 17. The Authority appealed against the Commissioner’s determination in the Decision Notice that the relevant Requested Information should be disclosed. The basis of the Authority’s appeal was that section 35(1)(a) is engaged in respect of the Request (as concluded by the Commissioner in the Decision Notice) but that (contrary to the findings in the Decision Notice) the Public Interest Test favoured maintaining the exemption in that section. 18. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal covered three separate issues which, in essence, were based on its views that the Commissioner failed to apply the Public Interest Test correctly because: 19. a. he mischaracterised the policy of free admission to the Centre as a standalone policy and did not recognise that the policy to which the Requested Information relates was a live policy (we refer to this below as “Ground 1”); b. he failed to correctly consider the ‘safe space’ and ‘chilling effect arguments’ (we refer to this below as “Ground 2”); and c. he failed to correctly consider and give sufficient weight to his earlier decisions (we refer to this below as “Ground 3”). We address the Authority’s three grounds of appeal in further detail later below. The Tribunal’s powers and role 20. The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 58, as follows: “(1) If on an appeal under section 57 the Tribunal considers— (a) that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law, or (b) to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner, that he ought to have exercised his discretion differently, the Tribunal shall allow the appeal or substitute such other notice as could have been served by the Commissioner; and in any other case the Tribunal shall dismiss the appeal. (2) On such an appeal, the Tribunal may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based.”. 4