Decision
Mr Ken Foxe, Right to Know CLG & The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162297-Y4N7G8
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162297-Y4N7G8
Published on
Whether the Department was justified in refusing records relating to the attendance of officials at COP 16 in Colombia, under sections 15(1)(d) and section 15(1)(i) of the FOI Act on the ground that the information was previously released to the applicant and is in the public domain
13 November 2025
In On 21 July 2025, the applicant made a request to the Department for the following:
• a record/spreadsheet/database of all costs incurred by the Department or the National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS) arising from attendance of officials at COP 16 in Colombia.
• a list of those who travelled.
• a copy of all invoices/receipts associated with the trip.
On 19 August 2025, the Department refused the applicant’s request under sections 15(1)(d) and 15(1)(i) of the FOI Act. On 19 August 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of the Department’s original decision, stating that he does not have unredacted copies of all of the records he sought. On 1 September 2025, the Department affirmed its original decision, stating that the requested records had already been released to the applicant under two previous FOI requests, save for redactions made to one record released under one of those previous requests. The Department also stated that it was possible that some relevant records may be held by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as copies of the relevant records have not yet been submitted to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.
On 8 September 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Department’s decision, reiterating that he does not have an unredacted copy of the information concerned and that he wanted a fresh decision.
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 correspondence outlined above and to the submissions made by the Department in support of its position. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
The Department’s position is that the records sought by the applicant were released to him previously, apart from certain information that it had redacted in one of the records. The applicant contends that he has not been provided with an unredacted copy of the information he sought.
Accordingly, this review is solely concerned with whether the Department was justified in refusing the applicant’s request under sections 15(1)(d) and 15(1)(i) of the FOI Act.
Section 15(1)(i)
Section 15(1)(i) of the FOI Act provides for the discretionary refusal of a request where the request relates to records already released, either to the same or a previous requester and where the records are available to the requester concerned. For the section to apply, the FOI body should be in a position to show that (i) the records sought were already released and (ii) they are available to the requester.
At the invitation of the Investigating Officer, the Department provided the records that were released to the applicant under his previous requests. The Department also provided a schedule of records for the previous requests as well as the relevant request and decision letters. These showed that the Department had released two records to the applicant, one for each of the two previous requests. One of these records was released in full, while the other was partially released, with redactions.
In its submissions, the Department confirmed that one of the records previously released to the applicant had only been part-granted. The Department went on to say that it still considers that the information redacted from this record is exempt from release under the Act. Finally, the Department stated that it considered it appropriate to rely on section 15(1)(i) in this instance as the Department understood it to mean all of the records released, including where one of these records had been part-granted.
I am satisfied the Department cannot rely on section 15(1)(i) to refuse access to a record where part of that record was refused previously, as it cannot be said that the withheld parts of the record are available to applicant. The purpose of section 15(1)(i) is to negate the need for public bodies to provide additional copies of records that have already been released and are available to the requester. Clearly, in this case the applicant does not have a full copy of the relevant records. Accordingly, I find that the Department was not justified in refusing the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(i), in circumstances where some of the records previously released to him were not released in full.
Section 15(1)(d)
The Department also refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(d) of the FOI Act. Section 15(1)(d) provides that access to records may be refused if the information is already in the public domain. The Department said that as a response to the applicant’s previous FOI request had already issued to him, the information is in the public domain. The Department has not identified where this information is in the public domain, other than to say it was previously released to the applicant. In circumstances where the Department redacted certain information from the records it released previously, I do not accept that all of information sought is already in the public domain.
In conclusion, I find the Department was not justified in its decision to refuse the applicant’s request under sections 15(1)(d) and 15(1)(i) of the Act. As the Department considers that the information it originally redacted from the record is exempt, I do not consider it appropriate to simply direct its release. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the most appropriate course of action to take is to annul the Department’s decision and to direct it to conduct a new decision-making process. The usual rights to an internal review and subsequent appeal to this Office will apply to the new decision, as necessary.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the Department’s decision to refuse the applicant’s request under sections 15(1)(d) and 15(1)(i) of the FOI Act and I direct it to consider his request afresh.
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.
____________________
Richard Crowley
Investigator