The Cabinet Office does not have to reveal whether serving government ministers declared criminal convictions during their appointment vetting, an information tribunal has ruled.
The First-tier Tribunal upheld the Government's refusal to confirm or deny whether it held the information following a Freedom of Information request seeking the number of ministers who had made such a declaration.
The majority decision means the Cabinet Office can continue to withhold both whether any declarations were made and, if so, how many ministers were involved.
What information was requested?
Times journalist George Greenwood submitted the request to the Cabinet Office on 5 December 2024.
It asked whether any serving ministers had declared a criminal conviction during the appointment process and, if so, how many had done so.
The request did not seek the names of individual ministers, the offences involved or any detailed criminal records.
Nevertheless, the Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the request. The Information Commissioner's Office upheld that response in November 2025, prompting an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
Tribunal supports Cabinet Office refusal
The tribunal issued its decision on 23 July 2026 following a hearing in May.
By a majority, the panel concluded that confirming or denying whether the information was held would disclose personal data relating to criminal convictions.
It found that even an answer saying no declarations had been made would convey information about every minister in the relevant group. Conversely, confirmation that declarations existed could potentially be combined with subsequent information to identify an individual minister.
The tribunal said criminal offence data receives enhanced protection under the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. It concluded that no applicable legal condition had been established that would permit the information to be disclosed to the public through the Freedom of Information Act.
Confidentiality of ministerial vetting
The Cabinet Office also argued that confidentiality was important to the effectiveness of the ministerial appointment process.
Simon Madden, director of the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics Team, gave evidence about the potential consequences of disclosure.
The Government's case was that prospective ministers may be less candid when supplying personal information if they cannot expect the appointment process to remain confidential. That could reduce the quality of the information available to a prime minister when considering appointments.
The majority accepted that the public had a legitimate interest in ministerial integrity and standards in public life. However, it found that the balance favoured maintaining the Cabinet Office's refusal to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information.
Panel member dissented
The decision was not unanimous.
A dissenting member of the tribunal argued that the request concerned the behaviour of prospective ministers during the appointment process rather than their underlying criminal status.
According to the minority view, a positive answer would establish only that at least one minister had disclosed information they considered relevant. It would not identify an individual, establish the precise nature of a conviction or prove that every disclosure was complete.
The dissenting member considered that scrutiny of how ministers respond to the vetting process was an important part of democratic accountability and would have allowed the appeal.
Request followed Louise Haigh resignation
The request followed the resignation of Louise Haigh as transport secretary after her previous conviction for fraud by false representation became public.
Ms Haigh said the incident related to a mobile telephone she reported stolen following a mugging in 2013. She pleaded guilty after police told her the handset had subsequently been switched on.
Her case prompted questions about how criminal convictions are declared and considered when ministers are appointed.
What does the ruling mean?
The ruling does not make every criminal conviction involving a minister legally secret. Convictions established in open court can still be reported, and ministers can choose to disclose information publicly.
Instead, the decision concerns information held within the confidential ministerial appointment process.
The Cabinet Office is not required to say whether ministers declared convictions during that process, nor provide the total number who did so.
The request also concerned the group of ministers serving when it was submitted in December 2024. The ruling does not establish that any member of the present Government has an undisclosed conviction.