Summary: The Information Commissioner varied the Department's decision. He directed the release of a small number of the records relevant to parts 7 and 29 of the request. He found that hard copy (paper) records of relevance to parts 1, 2, 5, 14 and 18 of the request were no longer held by the Department and he did not have jurisdiction to consider such records or otherwise direct their release. He annulled the Department's effective refusal of electronic records of potential relevance to these elements of the request, which were still held by the Department, and directed the Department to consider such records afresh. The Commissioner upheld the Department's refusal of the majority of the records relevant to the remaining aspects of the request within the scope of the review, finding them to be exempt from release, or outside the scope of the FOI Act as appropriate, under sections 10(1)(a), 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 22(1)(a), 24(1)(c), 24(2)(e), 26(1)(b), 27(1)(b), 28(1), 46(1)(b) and 46(2) of the FOI Act. (The Commissioner's findings on the individual aspects of the request are, for ease of reference, set out in bold font in the body of this decision.)
Date: 13-11-2014
Case Number: 090077
Public Body: Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
Section of the Act.: s.10, s.10(1)(a), s.19, s.19(1)(a), s.19(1)(b), s.19(1)(c), s.22, s.22(1)(a), s.24, s.24(1)(c), s.24(2)(e), s.26, s.26(1)(b), s.27, s.27(1)(b), s.28, s.28(1), s.46, s.46(1)(b), s.46(2),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Council was justified in its decision to refuse access to further relevant records in accordance with the provisions of section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of the Council.
Date: 10-11-2014
Case Number: 140047
Public Body: Dublin City Council
Section of the Act.: s.10, s.10(1)(a), s.10(1)(c), s.10(2),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department and directed the release of extracts of the withheld record. He found that the Department was justified in its decision to refuse access to other parts of the record on the basis of section 22(1)(b) of the FOI Act.
Date: 05-11-2014
Case Number: 140126
Public Body: Department of Justice and Equality
Section of the Act.: s.22, s.22(1)(b), s.22(1B), s.23, s.23(1)(a)(ii), s.26, s.26(1)(a), s.28, s.28(1), s.28(2), s.28(5), s.28(5)(b), s.28(5B),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that Cheshire Ireland was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought in accordance with the provisions of section 10(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He affirmed the decision of Cheshire Ireland.
Date: 05-11-2014
Case Number: 140191
Public Body: Cheshire Ireland
Section of the Act.: s.10, s.10(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision to refuse access to records 23 and 24 under section 19(2) and record 27 under section 22(1)(a) of the FOI Act. She varied the Department's decision in relation to record 17 insofar as factual information is to be released in accordance with section 19(3)(a) of the FOI Act. She also varied the Department's decision and directed that records 5 to 11, 14 and 18 to 22 be released in full as well as directing the release of the extracts relating to COGG in records 12, 15 & 16
Date: 29-10-2014
Case Number: 130087
Public Body: The Department of Education and Skills
Section of the Act.: s.19, s.19(1)(a), s.19(1)(b), s.19(1)(c), s.19(2)(a), s.19(3)(a), s.22, s.22(1)(a), s.34, s.34(10), s.34(12)(b),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the HSE was not justified in its decision to refuse access to the records on the basis of section 23(1)(aa). However, she found that the records should be refused under section 28(3). She drew attention to the provisions of section 28(4) which requires the HSE to offer access to the records concerned to such health professional having expertise in the subject-matter of the records as the requester may specify
Date: 28-10-2014
Case Number: 130020
Public Body: The Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.:
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the Department was justified in its decision to refuse access to further relevant records sought in accordance with the provisions of section 10(1)(a). He affirmed the decision of the Department.
Date: 21-10-2014
Case Number: 130025
Public Body: Department of Justice and Equality
Section of the Act.: s.10, s.10(1)(a),
Summary: The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department and found that the FOI Act does not apply to Report 4 under Section 46(1)(c)(ii). She further found that Sections 20(1) and 31(1)(a) do not apply to exempt any of the information but that Section 23(1)(a)(v) applies to exempt some information in Report 3 Appendix 4 and that Section 28(1) applies to exempt the name of an individual in Report 10. She directed the release of Report 3 apart from the exempt information in Appendix 4; the release of Report 10 apart from the name of the individual; and the release of Report 11 in full.
Date: 17-10-2014
Case Number: 120202
Public Body: Department of Justice and Equality
Section of the Act.: s.21, s.21(1), s.23, s.23(1)(a)(v), s.28, s.28(1), s.31, s.31(1), s.46, s.46(1)(c)(II),
Summary: The Senior Investigator found that the HSE was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought in accordance with the provisions of sections 10(1)(a) and 28 of the FOI Act. Accordingly, she affirmed the decision of the HSE.
Date: 17-10-2014
Case Number: 120136
Public Body: Health Service Executive
Section of the Act.: s.8, s.8(4), s.10, s.10(1)(a), s.28, s.28(1), s.28(2), s.28(5), s.28(5)(a), s.28(5)(b), s.28(6), s.34, s.34(2), s.13
Summary: The Information Commissioner varied the Council's decision. He did not accept that the Council had justified its contention that the relevant withheld records continued to attract what is generally referred to as "litigation privilege" but accepted that certain of them attracted "legal advice privilege". He thus found such records to be exempt under section 22(1)(a) of the FOI Act. He directed the release of the remaining records (except for any personal or joint personal information therein) and, under section 34(13) of the FOI Act, specified the period of time within which effect shall be given to this element of his decision as within 10 working days of the expiration of the time for the bringing of an appeal to the High Court. He annulled the Council's effective refusal of any relevant records held by its legal advisors, and directed that it consider this aspect of the applicant's request afresh, in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act.
Date: 09-10-2014
Case Number: 120210
Public Body: Meath County Council
Section of the Act.: s.22, s.22(1)(a), s.22(1)(b), s.34, s.34(9)(a)(iii), s.34(13),