FOI request (FOIR-753957858)

Section 42 – Legal Professional Privilege

The Council refuses to disclose certain information under section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Section 42 provides an exemption for information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings. The exemption protects confidential communications between a professional legal adviser and their client made for the purpose of giving or obtaining legal advice or for use in litigation.

The exemption is qualified and subject to the public-interest test. The Council recognises that transparency promotes accountability and public confidence; however, there is a compelling public interest in safeguarding the ability of public bodies to obtain legal advice in confidence. On balance, the Council concludes that this public interest outweighs any in disclosure, and the information is withheld accordingly.

Section 30 – Investigations and Proceedings

The Council has considered section 30(1)(b) and (c), which exempt information held for the purposes of investigations or criminal proceedings conducted by a public authority that has power to institute such proceedings.

The information requested does not arise from any investigation of that kind. The Council is not exercising powers equivalent to those of a prosecuting authority, and the material does not relate to a criminal investigation capable of leading to prosecution.

For transparency, the Council notes that section 30 was considered but is not engaged in this instance.

Section 31 – Law Enforcement

The Council relies upon section 31(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This provides that information is exempt where its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

The information sought concerns internal and inter-agency communications about the operation, regulation, and security of Hastings Pier, including matters linked to the recent licensing appeal. Those communications contain references to enforcement planning, site security, and liaison with partner agencies. Disclosure could reveal operational methodology, enforcement strategy, or vulnerabilities at the site. This would be likely to assist individuals’ intent on unlawful or disruptive activity and would prejudice both the Council’s and its partners’ ability to prevent and detect crime or disorder associated with the premises.

This is a qualified exemption and subject to the public-interest test.

Public-interest factors favouring disclosure

a)    Promoting accountability and transparency in public decision-making and expenditure.

b)    Furthering understanding of how the Council manages and regulates public assets.

c)    Encouraging informed public debate about Hastings Pier and its licensing arrangements.

The Council acknowledges the presumption in favour of openness under the Act.

Public-interest factors favouring non-disclosure

1. Protection of public safety and prevention of crime – Disclosure could increase the risk of vandalism, theft, unlawful entry, or antisocial behaviour. The Council has duties under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to take steps to prevent such crime.

2. Preserving the effectiveness of enforcement and regulatory activity – The Council and partner agencies must be able to discuss enforcement strategy, inspection regimes, and security measures candidly. Disclosure would risk revealing operational detail that could undermine ongoing or future enforcement.

3. Maintaining cooperation with partner agencies – Effective collaboration with the Police, Fire Service, and licensing bodies depends on mutual confidence that sensitive information will remain confidential. Disclosure would chill future cooperation and impede law-enforcement functions.

4. Avoiding prejudice to licensing and regulatory proceedings – The communications include material relating to the recent licensing appeal. Releasing this information could interfere with the fairness of such proceedings, expose untested evidence or legal reasoning, and invite improper external pressure on decision-makers.

5. Safeguarding public assets – Hastings Pier represents significant public investment. Disclosure that heightens security risks or invites criminal activity would cause financial loss and reputational harm.

6. Minimal wider benefit in disclosure – There is no substantive evidence that public release would deliver a tangible community benefit. The potential prejudice to law enforcement and public safety substantially outweighs any transparency value.

Conclusion

After weighing all relevant considerations, the Council concludes that the public interest in maintaining the exemption under section 31(1)(a) outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Protecting the effectiveness of enforcement activity, ensuring public safety, and maintaining the integrity of regulatory processes best serve the public interest.

Accordingly, the requested information will not be disclosed.

Section 40 – Personal Data

Information identifying individual persons connected with Hastings Pier constitutes personal data under section 40(2) of the Act. Disclosure would contravene the data-protection principles and is therefore absolutely exempt.