Decision
Mr. X and The Courts Service of Ireland
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-152208-S5D5W4
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-152208-S5D5W4
Published on
Whether the Courts Service was justified in refusing an application under section 10 of the FOI Act for a statement of reasons, on the basis that the request was frivolous or vexatious, or formed part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests
22 July 2025
This review concerns a request for a statement of reasons which the applicant originally made on 24 May 2024, and then amended on 27 May 2024. In the request, he sought a statement of reasons pertaining to how “the Courts & Courts Service have conducted a criminal case regarding a Harassment conviction from 2005 which pertains to my identity at [specified district court area] of which it has been established that no Court Records currently exist or never existed regarding this criminal conviction.” He also sought a statement of reasons for “the full legal basis in which The Courts/Courts Service (specified District Court) has legally initiated by way of summons (and in the complete absence of such summons from 2005 and any such destruction record of same) or other means trialled and later concluded to conviction this specific offence from 2005 in the complete absence of any Court Records or Prosecution Data which demonstrates the legal process of how this conviction was initiated and thus arrived at”. Furthermore, the applicant sought “a statement of reasons and the full legal basis including such legal basis from The Courts Data Officer in which The Courts Service who acted on behalf of data processing for this conviction data on behalf of the judiciary later provided and processed and at times on dates in 2016 onwards confirmed this conviction data was correct to An Garda Siochána National Vetting Bureau (NVB) in which they have continued in the disclosure of this conviction data within Garda Vetting disclosures since 2005”.
On 26 June 2024, the Courts Service refused the application. In summary, it refused the application under section 10(1) on the basis that the applicant had not shown that he was materially affected by an act of the Courts Service. It said that the matters raised by the applicant were matters for the Courts, and not the Courts Service, which is responsible for the management and administration of the Courts, rather than the administration of justice which is a matter for the judiciary. Furthermore, the Courts Service refused the application under section 15(1)(g) which provides for the refusal of an FOI request where, in the opinion of the FOI body, a request is frivolous or vexatious or forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests from the same requester.
The applicant sought an internal review of this decision on 23 July 2024. The correspondence was lengthy and the Courts Service does not appear to have recognised it as a request for internal review initially; however, the applicant clarified its purpose on 25 July 2024. Among the points made, the applicant said that the specific FOI request was not revisiting a previous issue. He said that the request was specifically focused on the full legal basis pertaining to the processing and disclosure of data to An Garda Siochána (AGS) NVB, in the complete absence of court records and destruction records for same, which was not previously requested. He said that the reason surrounding the non-existence of court records has not been explained to him by any source. He made detailed references to the Data Protection Acts and obligations under this legislation. He also said that he was materially affected by the data processing activities of the Courts Service and that his professional career was unduly affected as well as it causing him anxiety, distress and inconvenience.
On 16 September 2024, the Courts Service issued a later internal review decision in which it affirmed its decision to refuse the section 10 application under sections 10(1) and 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act. It provided further arguments in support of its position. The Courts Service then addressed, outside of FOI, various issues raised by the applicant. It distinguished between the Courts and the Courts Service and their respective roles, as well as the role of AGS. It also clarified the position in respect of court records.
On 23 September 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Courts Service’s decision.
During the review, the Courts Service clarified that while it cited section 15(1)(g) as a basis for refusal, its position was that the application for a statement of reasons was refused under section 10(7) which provides for the refusal of an application for a statement of reasons if the request is frivolous or vexatious, or forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests. The applicant was advised of the Courts Service’s revised position as well as being provided with a summary of its submissions in support of this position. The applicant provided a detailed response to this.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made by the Courts Service and the applicant, as well as correspondence between the parties. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is confined to the sole issue of whether or not the Courts Service was justified in refusing the applicant’s section 10 application under the FOI Act.
As outlined above, during the course of this review the applicant was advised of the Courts Service’s revised position and was invited to make further submissions in response. The applicant provided a response which ran to 68 pages. Needless to say, I cannot refer to the submissions received in full, but I confirm that I have had regard to same. Throughout the submissions, the applicant requested that this Office provide responses in respect of questions posed. The Information Commissioner has a statutory duty under section 22(10) of the FOI Act to provide reasons for his decisions. While I am not required, and do not intend, to respond to the specific questions posed in the applicant’s submissions, this Office always strives to provide robust reasoning to support decisions made.
I note that in his submissions the applicant makes repeated references to data protection legislation and rights under that statutory regime. For the avoidance of doubt, the FOI Act is entirely independent of data protection legislation and this Office has no remit in respect of any aspects of that regime.
Finally, it is important to note that this Office has no remit to investigate complaints, to adjudicate on how FOI bodies perform their functions generally, or to act as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with respect to actions taken by FOI bodies.
Section 10(1) of the Act provides that a person who is affected by an act of an FOI body, and has a material interest in a matter affected by the act or to which it relates, is entitled to a statement of reasons for the act as well as a statement of any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of that act. Under subsection (13), an act of a body is deemed to include a decision of the body.
Section 10(7) provides that “a head to whom a request is made under this section may refuse to grant the request if the request is, in the opinion of the head, frivolous or vexatious, or forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests from the same requester or from different requesters who, in the opinion of the head, appear to have made the requests acting in concert”.
As outlined above, the Courts Service refused this application under section 10(1) and under 10(7) of the Act. In its submissions to this Office, it stated that in light of the applicant’s continued correspondence regarding his court case, which started in 2022, it believes that his FOI requests have now reached the threshold of being frivolous and vexatious and show a pattern of being manifestly unreasonable. Having regard to these submissions, it is in my view appropriate to first consider section 10(7) of the Act.
Generally speaking, a request is considered by this Office to be frivolous or vexatious where it has been made in bad faith or forms part of a pattern of conduct that amounts to an abuse of process or an abuse of the right of access. We have previously set out a number of non-exhaustive factors that we consider relevant in assessing whether a request may be categorised as frivolous or vexatious and regard those non-exhaustive factors as equally relevant in determining whether or not there is evidence of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests. The factors include, but are not limited to;
1. The actual number of requests filed: are they considered excessive by reasonable standards?
2. The nature and scope of the requests: for example, are they excessively broad and varied in scope or unusually detailed? Alternatively, are the requests repetitive in character or are they used to revisit an issue which has previously been addressed?
3. The purpose of the requests: for example, (a) have they been submitted for their "nuisance" value, (b) are they made without reasonable or legitimate grounds, and/or (c) are they intended to accomplish some objective unrelated to the access process?
4. The sequencing of the requests: does the volume of requests or appeals increase following the initiation of court proceedings or the institution or the occurrence of some other related event?
5. The intent of the requester: is the requester's aim to harass government or to break or burden the system?
It is not necessary for all of the above factors to be present before a request can be refused under section 10(7), nor is the list exhaustive. The outcome or cumulative effect of the requests is also a relevant consideration. It is also appropriate to consider the request concerned in the context of other requests made to the FOI body and in the context of the requester's other dealings with the FOI body concerned. On that latter point, I note that in her judgment inKelly v the Information Commissioner [2014] IEHC 479, O’Malley J. found that this Office was not confined to considering the specific request and that it was entitled to consider the wider context in which the request was made. This view was endorsed by the Court of Appeal inGrange v the Information Commissioner [2022] IECA 153. In that case, the Court of Appeal found that this Office was “entitled to take into account the history of dealings between the appellant and the Department and the previous FOI requests insofar as they were relevant to the appellant’s grievances, as well as the context of the FOI request in question”.
When considering whether a request forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests, it seems to me that the question I must consider is not whether each request, of itself, is manifestly unreasonable. Rather, I believe that the appropriate approach to take is to consider whether the requests, when considered together, form a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests such that any request forming part of that pattern may be refused under section 10(7).
It is also important to note that while section 13(4) of the FOI Act generally requires public bodies to disregard any reasons for the request, a requester's motive for making an FOI request is relevant when considering the application of section 10(7). In the aforementioned High Court proceedings, O'Malley J. stated that in determining whether a particular application should be described as vexatious, the Information Commissioner is entitled by statute to use his discretion. She stated that "[t]here is no obligation on the Commissioner to prove the applicant's state of mind, and inferences may be drawn on a common sense basis from a pattern of conduct".
In its submissions to this Office, the Courts Service said that the applicant sought access to records related to his previous court proceedings before a named District Court and has been formally writing to the Courts Service since 2022 in relation to this matter, relying on various access mechanisms including FOI, Data Protection and Customer Complaints, and he has also written to the Office of the Chief Executive Officer, a named Court Office and the Office of the Ombudsman. It said the applicant has been informed throughout this process that the records at issue are not under the control of the Courts Service, and that any concerns must be addressed to the Court.
The Courts Service said that on 6 July 2023, the applicant brought a formal application for access to these records before the presiding District Court Judge, who granted access to the previous court orders. It said that the applicant subsequently alleged that Courts Service staff did not follow through on the Judge’s order to release “all records”. It said while the relevant office manager clarified the meaning of the order of the Judge on foot of the applicant’s ongoing complaint this did not satisfy the applicant. It said the applicant continued to pursue this issue by writing to the FOI and Data Protection Unit, and the Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the Courts Service.
The Court Service said that in order to resolve the impasse, in 2024, upon hearing of the ongoing interactions between the applicant and the Courts Service, the District Court Judge directed to have the matter re-entered before him to clarify his order of the 6 July 2023. It said that in November 2024, the relevant Court Office wrote out to the applicant to inform him of the Judge’s direction and to notify him that the matter had been re-entered for 12 December 2024 for hearing. It said the applicant did not attend on that date but emailed the named Court Office to seek an adjournment of the matter in order to source legal representation. It said the Judge granted an adjournment to 13 February 2025. It said the named Court Office confirmed that the applicant did not attend on 13 February 2025 and that no correspondence was received seeking an adjournment. It said that on that basis, the matter of the applicant’s request for access to his court records is now closed.
The Courts Service said that it is of the opinion that this request meets the requirements to be deemed as being frivolous and vexatious in nature and therefore section 10(7) of the FOI Act applies. In reaching this position, it said that it took account of the following:
• Since 2022, the applicant made 11 FOI requests, 6 requests for internal review, 4 applications for review by the Information Commissioner, 3 SAR requests as well as other correspondence to the Office of the Chief Executive and the Customer Complaints Office of the Courts Service, the Assigned Judge (under section 157 of the Data Protection Act 2018) and complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman.
• All of the correspondence and requests relate to court proceedings and court records.
• The records that the applicant has sought are court records which the Courts Service do not hold; it is responsible for the management and administration of the Courts only and is not involved in the administration of justice which is a matter for the courts and the judiciary, who are subject only to the Constitution and the law and independent in the exercise of their judicial functions. The Courts Service said that it has communicated this position to the applicant repeatedly.
• It said that it has assisted the applicant outside the FOI process but that it cannot assist the applicant further and that the matters have already been examined at length.
• As an appendix, the Courts Service provided a table setting out its correspondence with the applicant from July 2022 to date.
As outlined above, the applicant’s submissions to this Office were lengthy and I cannot reference them in full, but I confirm that I have had regard to same. The applicant says that considering the time frame and the resistance of the Court Service in disclosing information regarding records, the number of FOI request does not meet the threshold under section 10(7) of FOI Act for refusal. He says his FOI requests over are born of necessity and concern and are not manifestly unreasonable and have clear objectives to obtain information and statements of reasons for acts which affect him. He says it is incorrect to say all of the requests relate to court proceedings and court records and he made a request under FOI and GDPR for correction. He says it is also incorrect to say the records sought are court records which the Courts Service do not hold.
He says that in relation to the Court hearing to resolve the impasse in respect of court records being released, the Legal Aid Board advised him that an adjournment should be sought which he says he communicated to the Court. He says the Court Office was provided with correspondence stating that an application for legal aid was in progress but may take several weeks. He says it should also be noted that medical certificates were submitted by email for both dates and local Solicitors failed to provide any legal assistance.
The applicant submits that with reference to the published OIC guidance notes that the requests are not excessive by reasonable standards, the requests are not excessively broad, the requests are made with legitimate grounds with a clear objective related to the access process and with the intent of gaining access to records. The applicant provided this Office with copies of correspondence in support of his submissions. I have considered all the submissions which appear relevant to this review.
I note that the applicant has made 11 FOI requests, 6 requests for internal review and 4 applications for review by the Information Commissioner. He has also made 3 SAR requests as well as sending other correspondence to the Office of the Chief Executive, the Customer Complaints Office and to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court’s Service has provided this Office with a table setting out its correspondence with the applicant from July 2022 to date. This table contains 60 entries and it runs to 21 pages. It seems to me that this number of requests within this timeframe and in the context of the applicant’s other dealings with the Court Service is excessive by reasonable standards.
It also seems to me that the requests made by the applicant are repetitive in nature and the applicant is seeking to revisit the same issues regarding court proceedings and court records. I note in that regard that the applicant himself states that the matters at issue in this case “overlap extensively” with the matter at issue in case OIC-146719 -N0K7D2. In that case, the applicant requested a statement of reasons as to why the Minute Books, Charge Sheets, Summons etc. could not be found in the context of a Judicial order to release records in response to [named Judge’s] order to release all records which could be found on 6 of July 2023. In that case, the Senior Investigator found that the Courts Service was not required to provide a statement of reasons for the act identified as the applicant had not shown that he was affected by the act or that he had a material interest in a matter affected by that act or to which it relates.
I note that to resolve the impasse in respect of court records being released, the Judge directed to have the matter re-entered before him to clarify his order of the 6 July 2023. The matter was listed for hearing twice and the applicant did not attend either hearing. While the applicant says he submitted medical certificates for both dates, the Courts Service says it did not receive an application for adjournment for the second date and the matter was therefore struck out.
Having considered this matter carefully, it is my view that the applicant’s use of section 10 is more concerned with its "nuisance" value, as opposed to comprising genuine efforts to obtain reasons for actions taken that affect him. In my view, the application for a statement of reasons that is the subject of this review forms part of a pattern of conduct that amounts to an abuse of the right of access. I find, therefore that the Courts Service was justified in refusing to provide the statements of reasons sought under section 10(7) of the Act, on the basis that the application forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests. As I have found that the Courts Service was justified in refusing to provide the statement of reasons under section 10(7) of the Act, it in not necessary to also consider whether section 10(1) applies in this case.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the decision of the Courts Service to refuse to provide the statements of reasons sought, pursuant to section 10(7) of the FOI Act.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Jim Stokes
Investigator