On the whole I think the FOI regime in this country is pretty good, although there are some fairly large loopholes such as the inability to actually bring anyone to book for breaching it.
I've also had a relatively favourable impression of the FOI enforcement agencies - the Commissioner and the Tribunal.* However, I think the case reported here is one instance where the Tribunal has gone too far.
A landmark ruling was made this week which has raised more than a few eyebrows among scientific researchers.
Newcastle University lost its 3-year battle against the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) over revealing details of Home Office licences to conduct experiments on primates through Freedom of Information requests (FOIs).
...
However the Information Tribunal ruled that a recent decline in animal rights violence meant researchers were unlikely to become targets for extremists. It said: “Refusal to communicate with the public carries its own risks… creating the impression there is something to hide.”
There is an exemption in the FOI Act covering the issue of personal safety and I think it is there for very good reasons. The danger of attacks from the lunatic fringe is proven.
I think a "recent decline" is not therefore a good enough reason to put names out in public. This looks to me like playing fast and loose with scientists' safety.
*The tribunal arrangements in Scotland are less satisfactory, being expensive and bureaucratic.