Regulation 10(5)(a) - International relations, defence, national security, public safety

Challenge a refusal under EIR regulation 10(5)(a) - the authority says disclosure would harm international relations, defence, national security, or public safety

What this exception means#

The authority is saying that disclosing the information would, or would be likely to, cause substantial prejudice to one or more of: international relations, defence, national security, or public safety.

This is one of the broadest EIR exceptions - it covers four distinct interests. But the authority must specify which one it is relying on and explain how disclosure would cause harm. Simply citing the regulation number is not enough.

Unlike FOISA, all EIR exceptions are subject to a public interest test and must be interpreted restrictively. There is a presumption in favour of disclosure.

What the authority must show#

For this exception to apply, the authority must demonstrate that:

Disclosure would, or would be likely to, cause substantial prejudice - not just any harm, but harm of real and demonstrable significance
The harm relates to one of the four specific interests named in the regulation
The risk is genuine and realistic - not remote or hypothetical
Even if the exception applies, the public interest in withholding outweighs the public interest in disclosure, applying the presumption in favour of disclosure

Things to check#

Did they specify which interest? The regulation covers four distinct interests - international relations, defence, national security, and public safety. The authority should identify which one applies. Citing “10(5)(a)” without specifying is insufficient.
Did they explain specific harm? The authority must identify what harm disclosure would actually cause. Vague claims like “this could damage relations” or “there are national security implications” are not enough. What would happen, to whom, and how?
Is the harm realistic? The threshold is “substantial prejudice” - not mere inconvenience, embarrassment, or diplomatic irritation. A negative reaction from another party is not the same as substantial prejudice. The Commissioner requires a genuine, demonstrable link between disclosure and harm.
Is the information already in the public domain? If the information has been officially confirmed or published elsewhere, it is much harder for the authority to argue that disclosure would cause substantial prejudice. Check whether the information (or similar information) is already publicly available.
Public safety claims need specific evidence. For public safety, the authority must show a real risk that actual harm will occur in the reasonably foreseeable future - not a theoretical possibility. The Commissioner has rejected claims where there was no evidence of actual threats.
The public interest test is essential. Even if the exception applies, the authority must demonstrate that the public interest in withholding outweighs the public interest in disclosure, applying the presumption in favour of disclosure. Environmental transparency, public accountability, and the significance of the environmental issue are all relevant factors.

Use the interactive tool#

Answer the questions below to check whether regulation 10(5)(a) has been properly applied to your request.

What the evidence shows

Arguments that have supported disclosure

In cases where the public interest test favoured disclosure, these themes appeared most often.

Transparency of public bodies The public has a right to understand how taxpayer-funded bodies operate, including on matters of environmental safety
Community safety and awareness People living near potentially hazardous sites have a particularly strong interest in knowing about safety risks and what steps are being taken
Informed public participation The public needs access to environmental information to participate effectively in decisions about their local environment

What authorities typically argue

These are the arguments authorities most commonly make when withholding information under this exception. Knowing them helps you prepare a stronger case.

National security and defence Authorities argue that disclosure could reveal security arrangements, capabilities, or vulnerabilities at sensitive sites
Risk of malicious exploitation Information about site security, emergency procedures, or defence infrastructure could be exploited by those with criminal or terrorist intent
Protecting international relations Disclosure could prejudice relationships with foreign governments or international organisations on sensitive matters
Public safety Maintaining certain information as confidential is necessary to protect the safety of the public and the environment

Factors that tipped the balance

In decisions where the Commissioner ordered disclosure, these factors were decisive.

Information was generic, not operationally sensitive The Commissioner found the information was procedural or generic and did not actually pose the security risk the authority claimed
Authority failed to evidence the harm The authority could not demonstrate that disclosure would actually be used in an adverse way
Blanket application not justified Applying the exception to all requested information was not appropriate when only specific details genuinely engaged the exception

Based on published decisions of the Scottish Information Commissioner. You can browse the decisions on the Commissioner's website.