Decision
Ms. X and The National Museum of Ireland
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-157245-L9K4R4
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-157245-L9K4R4
Published on
Whether the Museum was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act, to certain records relating to human remains in the Museum’s possession on the ground that granting the request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of its work
23 April 2025
In a request dated 19 August 2024, the applicant made a 64-part request seeking access to information on human remains in the Museum’s possession. The applicant said she was seeking information “regarding Fionn, the 4,100-year-old early bronze age human remains discovered in 2019 during construction of the new N52 road at Tevrin, Co. Westmeath” and information regarding other human remains in the Museum's possession. The request contained a mixture of questions and requests for access to records, including information relating to the storage, display, research and repatriation of human remains.
Due to the nature and scope of the applicant’s request and its need to seek clarification from the applicant about various parts of her request, the Museum processed the applicant’s request in four separate decisions, two of which concern the refusal of records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, which was the subject of a separate review by this Office in case number OIC-154233-T1Y8V7 and two of which concern the Museum’s decision to refuse parts of the applicant’s request under 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act, which is the subject of this review.
As this review is only concerned with the Museum’s decisions to refuse parts of the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c), the background below only refers to those parts of the applicant’s request. As the applicant and the Museum are aware of the content of each numbered part of the request, I do not propose to repeat each part in detail here.
As outlined below, after receiving the applicant’s request, the Museum considered that processing certain parts of the applicant’s request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption to its work and engaged with the applicant about refining those parts of her request. It subsequently, refused those parts of the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act.
On 2 September 2024, the Museum wrote to the applicant about her request. It drew the applicant’s attention to section 12(1)(b) of the Act and the requirement to provide sufficient particulars to enable the Museum to identify the records sought. The Museum asked the applicant to clarify parts 47, 53-55 and 61 of her request and it offered some guidance as to how to refine/clarify these parts. The Museum also explained that a request may be refused under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act and said that it would advise the applicant shortly if it is necessary to amend or refine any of the remaining parts of her request.
On 9 September 2024, the applicant responded to the Museum by clarifying what she was looking for in parts 47, 53-55 and 61 of the request. On 12 September 2024, the Museum wrote to the applicant to say that parts 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 40 would be refused under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act. The Museum suggested ways the applicant could narrow the scope of her request in order to avoid refusal under this section. It said that if the applicant did not amend or refine her request, a final decision refusing the request under section 15(1)(c) will be sent to her within four weeks of the date on which it was received, namely by 16 September 2024. On 16 September 2024, the Museum refused parts 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 40 under section 15(1)(c) of the Act as it had not received a response from the applicant to refine these parts of the request.
On 23 September 2024, the Museum wrote to the applicant to say that her correspondence on 9 September 2024 on parts 47, 53-55 and 61 of the request expanded the scope rather than refined it. The Museum offered the applicant another opportunity to refine these parts of the request by providing a date range. On 7 October 2024, the Museum issued a second decision, refusing parts 47 and 53-55 of the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the Act. It subsequently refused part 61 of the request under section 15(1)(a) of the Act.
On 7 November 2024, the applicant requested an internal review of the Museum’s decision. On 29 November 2024, the Museum wrote to the applicant and said that as the four-week deadline to request an internal review of its decisions under section 15(1)(c), dated 16 September and 7 October 2024 had passed, it would only review its latter two decisions which were the subject of this Office’s previous review in case number OIC-154233-T1Y8V7.
Following engagement with this Office, the Museum agreed to carry out a retrospective internal review of its decisions to refuse certain parts of the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c). On 6 March 2025, the Museum subsequently affirmed its original decision to refuse parts of the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c). On 7 March 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of this 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 submissions made by the Museum and the applicant. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is solely concerned with whether the Museum was justified in refusing parts 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 40, 47, and 53-55 of the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act.
Section 15(1)(c) provides that an FOI body may refuse to grant a request where it considers that granting the request would, by reason of the number or nature of the records concerned or the nature of the information concerned, require the retrieval and examination of such number of records or an examination of such kind of records concerned as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, work of the body. It should be noted that a refusal may be made on the basis of a disruption of the work of a particular functional area, and not necessarily on the basis of disruption of work of the body as a whole.
However, section 15(4) provides that a request cannot be refused under section 15(1)(c) unless the body has first assisted, or offered to assist, the requester in amending the request so that it no longer falls to be refused under that section. As such, before I consider whether the Museum was justified in refusing the request under section 15(1)(c), I must first consider whether it complied with the provisions of section 15(4) before doing so.
The FOI Act is silent on the precise nature or level of the assistance to be offered under section 15(4). This Office takes the view that before a body can refuse a request under section 15(1)(c), the body must first have provided reasonable assistance to the requester in amending the request, or have offered to provide assistance in cases where the requester is not willing to amend the original request, in order to comply with the requirements of section 15(4). On the question of what constitutes reasonable assistance, this Office considers that the level or nature of the assistance to be provided can vary significantly from case to case and will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. It will often also depend on the willingness of the parties to engage in meaningful discussion on what might be acceptable in the circumstances.
In its submissions to this Office, the Museum stated that the letter it sent to the applicant on 2 September 2024 was the first indication that the applicant may need to narrow the scope of her request in order to avoid it being refused under section 15(1)(c). The Museum said that, on 12 September 2024, it put the applicant on formal notice that parts 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 40 would, without refinement, be refused under section 15(1)(c). It said that it outlined the reasons why these parts would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of its work and its suggested ways in which the applicant might refine her request in order to avoid its refusal under section 15(1)(c).
After receiving no response from the applicant, the Museum then issued its first decision on 16 September 2024 to refuse parts 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 40 of the request under section 15(1)(c). The Investigating Officer queried why there was only four days between the Museum’s formal notice to the applicant about section 15(1)(c) and its decision to refuse these parts of the request (12-16 September 2024). The Museum responded to this by saying that 12 September 2024 was the earliest it was able to give a formal warning that it would apply section 15(1)(c) without refinement, but it provided detailed guidance on how to refine these parts of the request. The Museum said that, while four days was a regrettably short period of time, it had fulfilled its obligation to offer assistance to refine the applicant’s request as per section 15(4). It said it did not receive a response from the applicant or a request for more time which may have been facilitated.
The Museum said that, in its letter dated 23 September 2024, it put the applicant on formal notice that parts 47, and 53-55 of the request would be refused under section 15(1)(c). To follow its obligation under section 15(4), the Museum said it offered to assist the applicant in refining these parts of the request by suggesting that she may wish to consider a more limited date range. After not hearing back from the applicant on this, it then refused these parts of the request under section 15(1)(c) on 7 October 2024.
Having considered the Museum’s correspondence with the applicant, I am satisfied that the Museum offered to assist the applicant in narrowing the scope of her request in order to avoid its refusal under section 15(1)(c). While it seems to me that the four-day window between the formal notice that section 15(1)(c) applies and the actual decision to refuse parts 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 40 of the request was relatively short, I note that in its letter of 12 September 2024 the Museum indicated its intention to refuse the request on 16 September 2024 if the applicant did not refine her request. It is clear in my view from the
Museum’s correspondence that it made a genuine effort to offer the applicant assistance to make her multi-part request more manageable so that it would not fall to be refused under section 15(1)(c), and the applicant did not avail of this offer at the time. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Museum complied with the provisions of section 15(4) of the Act. I will now proceed to consider whether the Museum was justified in refusing the relevant parts of the request under section 15(1)(c) of the Act.
The Investigating Officer asked the Museum to expand on its reasoning as to why processing the parts of the request refused under section 15(1)(c) would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of its work. Referring to its correspondence to the applicant on 12 September 2024, wherein it outlined the work involved in processing parts 1-5 and 47, 53-55 of the request, the Museum said:“Records of human remains in the Museum’s collection are stored either on the acquisitions database (if the remains arise from a reported find) or on the excavation database (if the remains are found on foot of a licenced excavation). In the acquisitions database, 362 records are described as relating to human remains. Record also show that 9042 boxes of human remains from licensed excavations are held in the collections. It should be noted that these boxes may contain one or multiple individuals. The Museum also does not ‘name’ human remains; however, each acquisition (including humans remains) is assigned a registration number that is used by the Museum to identify that acquisition. Therefore, a lengthy period would be required to fully and carefully examine all relevant records to determine if these are definitively humans remains in storage or on display in the Museum, and if so whether that record (i) relates to full or partial human remains, (ii) contains information relating to where those human remains originate from and how they came into the Museum’s possession, and/or (iii) contains a registration number relating to human remains”. The Museum said it would need to search 9,042 boxes manually to compile the requested information. It said this could take weeks or months and would involve at least two members of the limited personnel in the Museum’s Irish Antiquities Division (IAD) working on this full time.
For part 6 of the request, the Museum said:“The Museum has a record of all applications to perform DNA research on items in its collection between 2007, when the relevant database was created, and 2024. These applications relate to all archaeological objects and certain of these applications relate to DNA research carried out on human remains. However, there are over 8,081 entries in this record, and there is no absolute convention used in identifying where an entry relates to human or animal remains. Therefore, a lengthy period would be required to fully and carefully examine all entries to determine whether it relates to DNA analysis performed on human remains”. It said this would also take several weeks and at least two members off IAD staff working on it full time.
Again referring to its letter to the applicant on 12 September 2024, the Museum also set out its position in relation to parts 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 17 and 18, saying:“The Museum holds correspondence dating back to late 19th century and does not have a central record management system. Therefore, granting this part of your request, even in respect of records created on or after 21 April 1998 only (being the earliest effective date for records under the FOI Act) would involve searching manually through thousands of electronic and paper records to identify where there is any reference within correspondence to the repatriation of human remains and objects”
It said that as no date range was specified, this would take weeks to undertake this work and would involve at least two members of staff working on this fulltime as it would be a Museum-wide issue. For part 40 of the applicant’s request, the Museum estimated that it would take weeks of work and would involve multiple personnel from the Museum’s Finance Department, Registration and Conservation, the Facilities Department, Director’s Office as well as searching the Museum’s archive.
The Investigating Officer asked the Museum why it considered the applicant’s response on 9 September 2024 to be an expansion of the scope of parts 47 and 53-55 of the request. The Museum responded by saying that, while the applicant did clarify these parts of her request, the Museum considered it to be an expansion of the scope as it asked for much more information than the original four questions.
The Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of the Museum’s submissions and an opportunity to respond or make further submissions of her own. The applicant responded by saying that she has contacted the Museum seeking assistance to refine her request to a reasonable scope. She did not raise any arguments disputing the Museum’s position.
In my view, the Museum has clearly outlined why granting this request would involve a substantial interference with its work. It should be noted that a refusal may be made on the basis of a disruption of the work of a particular functional area within the FOI body, and not necessarily on the basis of disruption of work of the body as a whole.
Section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act is an express acknowledgement of the fact that there are limits to the resources a public body must expend on processing requests. The FOI Act seeks to strike a balance between ensuring access to records to the greatest extent possible and managing the administrative burden on FOI bodies in dealing with requests that require a significant allocation of time and resources. In the circumstances, having taken into consideration the submissions made by the Museum, I accept that the time and resources that would be required to retrieve and examine the relevant records would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, and disruption of, the Museum’s work.
I note the applicant said she has contacted the Museum to request assistance in refining her request. I would strongly urge the applicant to consider the Museum’s advice about ways to narrow the scope of her request with a view to meeting her aims to the maximum extent possible whilst simultaneously ensuring that the Museum has the capacity to process the request.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Museum’s decision to refuse those parts of the applicant’s request outlined above under section 15(1)(c) 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.
____________________
Richard Crowley
Investigator