Decision
Mr H and the Department of Justice and Equality (the Department)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: 130134
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: 130134
Published on
Whether the Department was justified in refusing access to certain details in records held on the applicant's file relating to his application for naturalisation, under section 28 of the FOI Act
13 March 2014
On 06 February 2013, the applicant made an FOI request to the Department for a copy of all documents and records relating to his application for naturalisation. The Department's decision of 08 March 2013 granted access to all of the records except for one, identified by it as Record 10, which it withheld in full. In his internal review application of 05 April 2013, the applicant identified four records which he considered should be on his file. The Department issued an internal review decision on 30 April 2013, refusing release of two of the records. The remaining two records identified had previously been released with the original decision. On 20 May 2013, the applicant sought a review by this Office of the Department's refusal to release the remaining two refused records. As the applicant did not seek internal review of the Department's refusal to release Record 10 in its original decision, the refusal of that record cannot be considered by this Office as part of this review.
As the applicant has sought a review of the withholding of these two records, Ms Mary Byrne, Investigator contacted the Department seeking the reasons why these records were not considered for release under this FOI request. The Department said that these records, which are lists naming 26 and 39 naturalisation applicants respectively, of which the applicant is one, relate to security checks conducted. However, in the course of this Office's review, the Department agreed to release the refused records with all personal information of third parties redacted. These redacted records issued to the applicant's solicitor on 22 January 2014.
In carrying out my review, I have had regard to copies of the records of relevance to the request (which were provided to this Office for the purposes of the Commissioner's review); to the correspondence between the Department and the applicant as set out above; to details of various contacts between this Office and the Department; and to details of various contacts between this Office and the applicant, particularly to two telephone conversations between Ms Byrne and the applicant's solicitor, dated 03 February and 14 February 2014. I have had regard also to the provisions of the FOI Act and, in considering the public interest at section 28(5)(a), the judgment of the Supreme Court issued in July 2011 in the case of The Governors and Guardians of the Hospital for the Relief of Poor Lying-In Women v The Information Commissioner.
The applicant's solicitor has indicated that the applicant would like this Office to issue a formal decision. Accordingly, I have decided to conclude the review by way of a formal binding decision.
The scope of this review is confined to assessing whether or not the Department was justified in refusing to fully release the remaining two records of relevance to the applicant's request.
Section 28(1) of the FOI Act provides, subject to other provisions of section 28, that a public body shall refuse a request for a record where granting it would involve the disclosure of personal information about an identifiable individual. I am satisfied that the withheld details comprise the personal information of persons other than the applicant and accordingly, I find the withheld details fall to be exempted under section 28(1) of the FOI Act.
There are some circumstances, provided for at section 28(2), in which the exemption at section 28(1) does not apply. Having examined the withheld details, I am satisfied that none of the circumstances identified at section 28(2) arise in this case. That is to say, (a) that the third party information contained in the records does not relate solely to the applicant; (b) that the third parties have not consented to the release of their information; (c) that the information is not of a kind that is available to the general public; (d) that the information at issue does not belong to a class of information which would or might be made available to the general public; and (e) that the disclosure of the information is not necessary to avoid a serious and imminent danger to the life or health of an individual. No argument to the contrary has been made by the applicant, and I find that section 28(2) does not apply to the withheld details.
Section 28(5) provides that a record, which is otherwise exempt under section 28(1), may be released in certain limited circumstances.
The effect of section 28(5)(a) is that a record, which has been found to be exempt under section 28(1), may be released if it can be demonstrated that "on balance, the public interest that the request should be granted outweighs the public interest that the right to privacy of the individual to whom the information relates should be upheld". In the judgment referred to earlier, the Supreme Court outlined the approach that the Commissioner should take when balancing the public interest in granting access to personal information with the public interest in upholding the right to privacy of the individual(s) to whom that information relates.
Following the approach of the Supreme Court, a public interest ("a true public interest recognised by means of a well-known and established policy, adopted by the Oireachtas, or by law") must be distinguished from a private interest for the purpose of section 28(5)(a). The language of section 28 and the Long Title to the FOI Act recognise a very strong public interest in protecting the right to privacy (which has a Constitutional dimension, as one of the un-enumerated personal rights under the Constitution). Accordingly, when considering section 28(5)(a), privacy rights will be set aside only where the public interest served by granting the request (and breaching those rights) is sufficiently strong to outweigh the public interest in protecting privacy.
The FOI Act itself recognises the public interest in ensuring the openness and accountability of public bodies in the performance of their functions. This public interest has been served to a certain extent by the material released to the applicant to date. However, being aware of the content of the withheld details, I do not consider that their release would further serve the public interest to such an extent that a breach of the third parties' Constitutional rights to privacy is justified. The applicant has not identified any other true public interest that might warrant the release of the withheld details. Thus, I find that the withheld details should not be released further to section 28(5)(a) of the FOI Act.
Finally, it is necessary to consider whether section 28(5)(b) is of relevance. The effect of section 28(5)(b) is that a record, which has been found to be exempt under section 28(1), may still be released if it can be demonstrated that the grant of the request would benefit the third party or parties whose personal information is also contained in the records. The applicant has not made any case that the release to him of the personal information of the third parties would be of benefit to those parties, nor am I otherwise aware of any reason to think that this would be the case. I find that no right of access arises further to the provisions of section 28(5)(b) of the FOI Act.
Having carried out a review under section 34(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Department's refusal of the withheld details.
A party to a review, or any other person affected by a decision of the Information Commissioner following a review, may appeal to the High Court on a point of law arising from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than eight weeks from the date on which notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Sean Garvey
Senior Investigator