Decision
Mr Ken Foxe, Right to Know CLG and Irish Prison Service
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-152610-K2M1Y4
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-152610-K2M1Y4
Published on
Whether the IPS was justified in refusing access, under section 37(1) of the FOI Act, to anonymised copies of order sheets submitted by subversive prisoners at Portlaoise prison for local shops
9 June 2025
In a request dated 29 August 2024, the applicant sought access to copies of the order sheets submitted by subversive prisoners at Portlaoise Prison for local shops from 1 June 2024 to the date of his request, and details of how much in transactions took place for the calendar year 2024 where subversive prisoners were allowed to make orders for local shops. In a decision dated 23 September 2024, the IPS refused the request under section 37(1) of the FOI Act. It said that due to the small numbers of subversive prisoners remaining in Portlaoise Prison, the release of the records may inadvertently lead to the release of the personal financial information of identifiable third parties. The applicant sought an internal review of that decision. He said the information sought is not personal information and could not be used to identify anybody. On 27 September 2024, the IPS affirmed its decision to refuse the request under section 37(1). On 8 October 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the IPS’s 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 submissions made by the IPS and the applicant’s comments in his application for review. I have also examined the records at issue. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
The records at issue comprise 31 pages of Order Sheets. Each page has a “Class” and “Date” field at the top. The “Class” field is not populated in any of the pages and the “Date” filed is populated on a number of the pages. Each page also contains three columns of information, entitled “Name”, “Goods Required” and “Amount”. In the copies of the records provided to this Office for the purposes of the review, the IPS has redacted prisoner names and numbers. The records contain details of items identified for order, the costs of each item, and various order totals.
It is apparent from his application for internal review and correspondence with this Office that the applicant is not seeking access to the names of the individual prisoners to whom the various orders relate. Accordingly, this review is concerned solely with whether the IPS was justified in refusing access, under section 37(1) of the FOI Act, to the order sheets sought, apart from the names and prison numbers of the individual prisoners.
Section 22(12)(b) of the FOI Act provides that a decision to refuse to grant an FOI request shall be presumed not to have been justified unless the FOI body concerned shows to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the decision was justified. This means that the onus is on the IPS to satisfy this Office that its decision to refuse access to the records at issue was justified.
Section 37(1) of the FOI Act provides for the mandatory refusal of a request if the FOI body considers that access to the record sought would involve the disclosure of personal information relating to an individual other than the requester. Section 2 of the FOI Act defines personal information as information about an identifiable individual that either, (a) would, in the ordinary course of events, be known only to the individual or members of the family, or friends, of the individual, or (b) is held by the FOI body on the understanding that it would be treated by that body as confidential. Section 2 goes on to specify 14 categories of information which, without prejudice to the generality of the above definition, constitute personal information, including (ii) information relating to the financial affairs of the individual, (vi) any criminal history of, or the commission or alleged commission of any offence by, the individual and (xii) the name of the individual where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would, or would be likely to, establish that any personal information held by the FOI body concerned relates to the individual.
It is apparent from the definition of personal information that a record does not have to specifically name a particular individual for the information in the record to comprise personal information relating to that individual. It is sufficient that the individual is identifiable from the information in question.
I am satisfied that the release of details of the items identified prisoners ordered and the associated costs would involve the disclosure of personal information relating to those individuals. However, as I have outlined above, the applicant does not require access to the identities of the prisoners. Accordingly, the question I must consider is whether the release of the details of the items listed for order, the costs of each item, and various order totals, would involve the disclosure information relating to identifiable individuals.
In his correspondence with both the IPS and this Office, the applicant said the information sought is not personal information and could not be used to identify anybody. He said the information has been released many times by the IPS in the past and has never been used to identify anybody, nor can it be used in that way. He said the IPS has been releasing this information for many years but appears, based on recent decisions, to have adopted a new policy when it comes to Section 37 of the FOI Act. He provided links to previous media coverage of similar records and said that they never led to the identification of any individual.
He said the IPS has suggested that there are a small number of subversive prisoners on a certain regime in Portlaoise Prison and this could lead to inadvertent identification. He disagreed with this because he is of the view that a person can easily guess at which subversive prisoners remain in Portlaoise based on the number there, the sentence length, and the very public nature of their convictions. He said the IPS publishes daily data on the number of prisoners in 'E' Wing of Portlaoise and provided a link at which this information is available. He said this showed that on 7 October 2024 there were five prisoners on that landing. He said he could speculate as to who these people might be based on media coverage of their convictions and sentence lengths but that does not mean their identity has been disclosed by the IPS.
In its submissions, the IPS said the records contain the personal records of prisoners in relation to their imprisonment. It said the small number of subversive prisoners remaining in Portlaoise Prison could lead to the identification of the personal purchases of the individuals. It said that at the time these records were previously released, there was a significantly higher number of subversive prisoners in Portlaoise Prison. It said this larger number of prisoners allowed for the anonymisation of the data being released. It said that as there has been a significant reduction in the number of subversive prisoners incarcerated in Portlaoise Prison, it is not now possible to fully anonymise the records and the prisoners would be identifiable to others. In response to the applicant’s submission that the information sought is not personal information and could not be used to identify anybody, it said it considers that the applicant cannot categorically state that the information cannot identify any individual.
As it was not apparent to this Office as to how the disclosure of the order sheets with the names and prison numbers of the individual prisoners redacted would allow for the identification of the prisoners and what items they purchased notwithstanding its argument that the number of prisoners involved was small, we invited the IPS to make additional submissions on that point. In response, the IPS reiterated its position that it is not possible to fully anonymise the records of such a small number of prisoners. It said the subversive prisoners are high-profile prisoners and their names would be well known to the public. It added that these prisoners would be well known to other prisoners and prison offices within both Portlaoise Prison and the wider prison estate. It said, therefore, that although individual purchases may not immediately identify individual prisoners, the purchases are attributable to a small group of individuals and given that the purchases are made from the personal funds of prisoners the IPS is of the opinion that this constitutes the personal information of identifiable individuals and is exempt from release to the world at large.
Pursuant to section 22(12)(b) of the Act, which places the onus on the FOI body of justifying its refusal of a request, I would expect the IPS to be in a position to show clearly how the disclosure of the information at issue in this case would allow specific individuals to be identified. I accept that the identities of the relevant prisoners may well be known to the public and that the number of prisoners involved is small. As such, I also accept that the disclosure of the order sheets would disclose the details of the items that small group of prisoners ordered and the costs of those items. However, it would not disclose precisely what items each prisoner ordered. The individual must be identifiable from the information disclosed. Accordingly, I find that the IPS has not satisfactorily shown that the release of the records would involve the disclosure of personal information relating to identifiable individuals. I find, therefore, that section 37(1) does not apply
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the decision of the IPS and I direct the release of the order sheets at issue, with the names and numbers of the relevant prisoners redacted.
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
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator