Decision
Mr X and An Garda Síochána
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-159798-H1P4G1
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-159798-H1P4G1
Published on
Whether AGS was justified in refusing an application under section 10 of the FOI Act for a statement of reasons concerning the applicant’s claim that AGS did not reply to correspondence from his solicitor, on the ground that the FOI Act does not apply to AGS in relation to the act in question, pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(n) of the Act
13 August 2025
On 25 December 2024, the applicant made a request for a statement of reasons under section 10 of the FOI Act. In outlining the background to his request, the applicant said that his solicitor wrote to a now retired Chief Superintendent and made enquiries on his behalf. He said that the Chief Superintendent acknowledged the correspondence and requested further information in order to conduct further enquiries. The applicant attached a copy of his solicitor’s correspondence and the Chief Superintendent’s initial reply when making his application under section 10. The applicant said that his solicitor complied with the Chief Superintendent’s request. He said that no further acknowledgement was ever provided to his solicitor or himself, nor has any further correspondence or communication been forthcoming from AGS in the matter since March 2023. The applicant claims that he is materially affected by an administrative decision by AGS of failing to reply to his solicitor and has requested a statement of reasons in the matter.
On 28 January 2025, AGS refused the applicant’s request for a statement of reasons on the ground that AGS is not a public body for the purposes of the FOI Act, pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(n) of the Act, other than in relation to administrative records relating to human resources, finance or procurement matters. On 29 January 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of AGS’s decision. On 12 May 2025, having received no reply from AGS, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the deemed refusal of his request for an internal review. This Office subsequently wrote to AGS and requested it to issue a letter to the applicant by 29 May 2025 setting out its effective position on his request. On 13 June 2025, following further communications from this Office, AGS wrote to the applicant affirming its original decision to refuse his request for a statement of reasons. On 16 June 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the decision by AGS.
During the course of this review, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of AGS’s submissions in which it outlined its reasons for refusing his application for a statement of reasons. The Investigating Officer invited the applicant to make submissions on the matter, which he duly did.
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 both parties. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether AGS was justified in refusing the applicant’s application, under section 10 of the FOI Act, for a statement of reasons.
In his submissions to this Office, the applicant expressed his dissatisfaction about the failure of AGS to issue an internal review decision and the subsequent time taken by AGS to provide him with an effective position after he applied to this Office for a review. He also questioned the basis for affording AGS another opportunity to respond to his request when this Office asked AGS to issue an effective position to him. It is our procedure to request FOI bodies to issue letters setting out their effective position where a body has failed to issue an internal review decision. I acknowledge the applicant’s frustration at the delays. I also find it disappointing that AGS did not comply with the statutory timelines provided in the Act or in responding to this Office’s request for an effective position in a timely manner. AGS is well aware of its responsibilities under the FOI Act and the timeframes provided in the Act and I would expect it to have proper regard to those responsibilities.
The applicant also outlined concerns he has relating to data protection matters and appears to question the legal basis around the processing of his data by the Garda Division that dealt with correspondence from his solicitor. The applicant also said that AGS members have a professional duty to respond to the communications from his solicitor. It is important to note that this Office has no role in examining complaints about compliance with data protection legislation, or indeed in relation to complaints about how FOI bodies carry out their functions in general.
Section 10 of the FOI Act provides that a person is entitled to a statement of reasons for an act of an FOI body where that person is affected by the act and has a material interest in a matter affected by the act or to which it relates. The statement of reasons must give the reasons for the act and any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of the act.
It is important to state at the outset that AGS is a partially included body for FOI purposes.
Section 6(2) of the FOI Act provides that an entity specified in Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Act shall, subject to the provisions of that Part, be a public body for the purposes of the Act. Schedule 1, Part 1 contains details of bodies that are partially included for the purposes of the Act. If a request relates to anything not included in Part 1, then the Act does not apply and no right exists for the request to be granted by the body.
Schedule 1, Part 1(n) provides that AGS is not a public body for the purposes of the FOI Act other than in relation to administrative records relating to human resources, or finance or procurement matters. In other words, AGS is only subject to the Act insofar as it holds records that relate to administrative matters concerning human resources, finance, or procurement. In accordance with Part 1(n), with the exception of these records, AGS is not subject to the Act.
The FOI Act does not define the term “administrative record” as provided for in Part 1(n) apart from stating that it relates to human resources, or finance or procurement matters. This Office considers the term to cover records relating to the administration of the body, as opposed to say, records relating to its operational matters or core functions. In the case of a number of specified public bodies, the right of access afforded by the FOI Act is restricted to records relating to their general administration. We consider the term general administration to refer to records which have to do with the management of a public body such as records relating to personnel, pay matters, recruitment, accounts, information technology, accommodation, internal organisation, office procedures and the like. In the case of AGS, the category of administrative records to which a right of access applies is limited further; they must also concern human resources, finance, or procurement matters.
As noted above, details of AGS’s submissions were provided to the applicant and the applicant was invited to make submissions of his own, which he duly did. While I do not intend to repeat those submissions in full here, I confirm I have had regard to them for the purpose of this review.
In submissions to this Office, the applicant explained that the correspondence to which AGS did not respond was related to a request by AGS itself for personal data that AGS required in order to conduct further inquiries pertaining to correspondence from his legal representative. The applicant maintains that AGS’s failure to reply to his legal representative constitutes an act, an administrative decision and a refusal of exercising powers which materially affects him as it has denied him the benefit of the records and further inquiries which he maintains he is entitled to. He believes AGS should acknowledge that it failed to even acknowledge his solicitor’s reply to the Chief Superintendent. The applicant contends that the FOI Act applies to this act and that he is entitled to a statement of reasons in relation to it. The applicant also contends that as the matter relates to a member of AGS who has since retired, it therefore relates to recruitment, management, finance and human resources and such decisions in relation to which the FOI Act applies to AGS.
In submissions to this Office, AGS said that the correspondence from the applicant’s legal representative concerned a matter pertaining to the applicant’s identity. AGS went on to say that Part 1(n) of Schedule 1 of the Act restricts the application of the Act in respect of AGS to administrative records relating to finance, procurement and human resources matters. AGS stated that the provisions of the Act (including Section 10) do not apply to any other records held by AGS. AGS stated that the correspondence from the applicant’s legal representative and therefore administrative decisions around this correspondence, do not relate to finance, procurement or human resources. AGS concluded that as such the provisions of the Act, including Section 10, do not apply and that no right to a statement of reasons exists. AGS said that the applicant’s request falls outside the scope of the Act in so far as it relates to AGS as outlined in Part 1(n) of Schedule 1. AGS maintained that it had therefore correctly refused the applicant’s request pursuant to Part 1(n) of Schedule 1.
Section 10 of the FOI Act outlines rights of persons to information regarding acts of FOI bodies affecting them. AGS is only a partially included agency for FOI purposes and is only subject to the FOI Act insofar as it relates to administrative records relating to human resources, or finance or procurement matters. In accordance with Schedule 1, Part 1(n), AGS is not subject to the Act, other than in relation to records concerning these administrative functions.
Given the very limited application of the FOI Act to AGS, the question I must consider is whether the act of failing to reply to, or engage with, the applicant’s solicitor in this case is an act within the meaning of section 10 of the FOI Act in so far as the Act applies to AGS. While the applicant has argued that the act of failing to reply is an administrative action, I am satisfied that the act in question does not relate human resources, or finance or procurement matters. It is evident from the correspondence between the applicant’s solicitors and AGS that the subject of the correspondence concerns policing matters and does not concern matters relating to human resources, finance or procurement. Furthermore, I do not accept the applicant’s argument that as the matter relates to a member of AGS who has since retired, it therefore relates to those functions in relation to which the FOI Act applies to AGS.
Having considered the matter carefully, I am satisfied that AGS was justified in refusing the applicant’s request for a statement of reasons in this case, and I find accordingly.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the decision of AGS to refuse the applicant’s application, under section 10 of FOI Act, for a statement of reasons.
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