The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has today ruled that a February 2024 Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request seeking the minutes of an East Grinstead Town Council meeting during which members of the public raised concerns about the growing influence of the Church of Scientology over the town, was in the public interest and not ‘vexatious’ as the Council had previously tried to claim.
On 8th and 29th January 2024, East Grinstead Town Council held two public meetings during which concerned residents and members of the public spoke about the then-Mayor Fazer Visser’s attendance at multiple Scientology events at their nearby Saint Hill headquarters. One member of the public told the Council of how she was abused as a teenager while working for Scientology and asked why the Mayor thought it was appropriate to support such a controversial organisation. Other questions were also asked relating to safeguarding, modern slavery and Scientology’s history of fraudulent activity.
Following the meetings, the entire public questions segments were removed from the minutes and cut out of the uploaded recording of the meeting, which was available on the Council’s official Youtube page.
On 1st February, I requested a copy of the minutes to both meetings under the Freedom of Information Act, which was rejected two weeks later as a “vexatious request” under section 14(1) of the legislation. I then filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the independent regulator responsible for upholding information rights in the United Kingdom. The Council proceeded to label me a “bully” and ignored my suggestions we work together collaboratively to educate Councillors on the issue at hand.
In April, the Daily Mail published a double-page feature on the issue, which included pictures of the then-Mayor with Tom Cruise at a Mission Impossible film premiere.
At a complaints hearing in May, East Grinstead Town Council decided they were wrong to remove the entire public questions section from it’s published minutes and re-uploaded the meeting recordings to their Youtube channel. They stopped short of issuing an apology to those affected, and redacted portions of the public comments they deemed to be ‘allegations against the Church’.
However, the ICO continued its investigation in to whether the FOI request should have been rejected. In its decision notice today, the ICO states the Council’s position was that “the complainant is pursuing an extensive campaign against the Council, frequently raising their concerns via social media. The Council provided the Commissioner with a number of screenshots of the complainant’s social media posts and links to the complainant’s YouTube videos to evidence this.”
The decision also noted “the complainant writes articles for websites, including their own website, where they raise concerns about the Council. It provided the Commissioner with examples of the complainant’s articles to evidence this. Furthermore, the Council reported that the complainant sells merchandise containing caricatures of its former Mayor on their website which it evidenced by supplying the Commissioner with screenshots of the merchandise.”
It also stated “the Council considers the complainant to have sent an unjustified amount of correspondence which has placed a burden on its resources. It argues that the complainant’s correspondence is having a detrimental impact on the Council as it is creating additional work for Council officers. The Council also said that the complainant’s correspondence is having a significant impact on the wellbeing of Council staff and Council members.”
Firstly, I want to apologise to any staff or members of the Council who felt their wellbeing was being impacted by this matter. The merchandise was intended to be a joke – and I now realise this was not received in the way it was intended, and I am sorry for any distress caused by the caricatures. However, I would like to re-iterate that the Council’s censorship of the public record and its handling of my (and other people’s) concerns gave no regard whatsoever to the wellbeing of the victims and survivors of abuse at Saint Hill, who demonstrated incredible bravery and courage by sharing their experiences in the public forum of a Council meeting.
In Scientology, you are threatened with severe repercussions for speaking publicly about your experiences and for many, it has left deep and long-standing scars which may never be fully healed. I made it very clear from the very beginning that the Council are not our enemy, but by attending Scientology events and censoring criticism raised about them during Council meetings, they are enabling them to continue damaging people’s lives.
Government bodies should be both transparent and accountable, but unfortunately East Grinstead Town Council fell short in both.
In its decision, the ICO states “having reviewed the evidence provided by the Council, the Commissioner considers that some of the complainant’s behaviour appears to have been calculated to harass and offend people involved with the Council. This includes merchandise that depicts individuals involved with the Council. This reduces the value of the serious cause the complainant may be pursuing.”
“However, the Commissioner considers the request in this case to have a serious purpose and value as the complainant has asked for information relating to a public meeting and the questions asked during that meeting. This information is of a legitimate public interest.”
“Furthermore, whilst the Commissioner is mindful that the Council is a small public authority with limited resources, it appears to him that complying with the request would not be overly burdensome for the Council. The Commissioner also notes that the Council has referred to the complainant having made four information requests prior to the request in question. The Commissioner does not believe that this number of requests in itself represents a significant burden.”
“The Commissioner’s conclusion is that the information request in question does not meet the threshold for him to conclude that it was vexatious.”
The Council now have 30 calendar days to supply the meeting minutes (and internal/external communications requested). “Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act”, the decision states, “and may be dealt with as a contempt of court”
This is a victory for free speech, a victory for independent journalism and a victory for former Scientologists.
