Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the IPS. He found that it was justified, under section 32(1)(b), in refusing access to the identities of IPS and AGS staff members contained in the relevant record. He found that it was not justified in refusing access to the remaining information withheld from the record under section 35(1)(a) but that a small amount of the information was exempt under section 37(1).

The Senior Investigator found that the section 38 requirements were not applied correctly in this case and annulled the decision of the HSE.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department’s decision. She found that one of the withheld records is exempt under section 15(1)(d) of the FOI Act on the basis that it is in the public domain. She found that the rest of the records are exempt under section 36(1)(b) on the basis that their disclosure could prejudice the competitive position of the Council and other parties in the conduct of their business of progressing the relevant projects. She found that the public interest does not weigh in favour of granting access to them.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of TII. She found that TII was justified in its decision to refuse access to withheld information in records on the basis that section 30(1)(a) of the FOI Act applied. She varied TII's decision to refuse access to withheld information in certain records under section 36 and directed the release of some of the information. She found that information in one record is exempt on the basis of section 37(1) of the FOI Act, since the withheld information contains the personal information of individuals other than the applicant. She found that the public interest in granting the request did not outweigh the public interest in upholding the privacy rights of those individuals.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Defence Forces. She found that the release of the remaining withheld parts of the records could reasonably be expected to prejudice or impair the fairness of civil proceedings in a court or other tribunal. She also found that the limited public interest test at section 32(3) did not apply to the records sought.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Defence Forces. She found that the release of the remaining withheld parts of the records could reasonably be expected to prejudice or impair the fairness of civil proceedings in a court or other tribunal. She also found that the limited public interest test at section 32(3) did not apply to the records sought.

The Senior Investigator affirmed TUSLA's decision under sections 35 and 37(1) of the FOI Act

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department’s decision under section 33(2)(b)(i) of the FOI Act, on the basis that the records comprise communications in confidence between the Department and a diplomatic mission of the State

The Senior Investigator annulled the decision of the Department and directed it to undertake a fresh decision-making process in respect of the applicant’s request.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of TUSLA.