ICO backs council decision not to provide information on art collection following FOI request
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has found that Birmingham City Council “correctly withheld” information on its most valuable artworks in storage and on display, following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
In a decision notice the Commissioner concluded that although there is a public interest in transparency around art assets owned by the council, the benefits of disclosing details of specific art assets and their values are “outweighed by the public interest in protecting such valuable public assets from theft”.
On 29 January 2024 the requester asked for the following information:
- How many pieces of artwork does Birmingham City Council own?
- How many pieces are on display?
- How many pieces are in storage?
- What is the approximate total value of the council's visual art collection?
- What is the approximate value of the artwork which is in storage?
- Could you provide a list of the top ten most valuable artworks in storage and the top ten most valuable artworks on display – including their respective values?
The council responded on 29 January and disclosed information relating to parts 1-3 of the request.
However, the council withheld the information in parts 4-6 of the request under the exemption for law enforcement (section 31).
Section 31(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) says that: “Information …. is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice- (a) the prevention or detection of crime….”
On 14 February 2024, the requester ontacted the Commissioner to complain about the way their request for information had been handled.
The Commissioner’s guidance on the application of section 31(1)(a) confirms that when deciding whether disclosure would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, authorities do not have to limit their consideration to the harm that the requested information could cause on its own.
The ICO said: “The exemption can take account of any harm likely to arise if someone pieced together the requested information with other information to form a broader picture. This is commonly known as the ‘mosaic effect’.”
The watchdog added: “In relation to the mosaic effect, in this case the Commissioner is satisfied that information in the public domain about the storage locations of Council owned artworks combined with information about specific artworks held and their value would increase the likelihood of these objects being targeted by criminals. It follows that disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime.”
The ICO determined that the council “appropriately applied” section 31(1)(a) FOIA to the withheld information.
It said: “[W]hilst the Commissioner accepts that there is a public interest in transparency around art assets owned by the Council, he considers that the public benefits of disclosing details of specific art assets and their values are outweighed by the public interest in protecting such valuable public assets from theft. He also considers that the Council’s disclosure of the total values in parts 4 and 5 of the request go some way to addressing the public interest in this matter.”
Birmingham City Council has been approached for comment.
Lottie Winson
