Decision
Ms X and Rotunda Hospital
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-152354-N2P4P4
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-152354-N2P4P4
Published on
Whether the Rotunda was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to records relating to the birth of the applicant’s mother in 1925 on the basis that the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken
21 February 2025
On 19 June 2024, the applicant made an FOI request to the Rotunda for access to records relating to her mother’s birth in 1925. The applicant included a copy of her mother’s baptism certificate which included details of her name and date of birth. On 29 July 2024, the Rotunda refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that no records could be found. The Rotunda stated that it had searched the Labour Ward Book of the relevant year for records of births using the surname provided in the applicant’s request. It said that no record of a mother delivering in the Rotunda on the date and surname provided was located following the searches carried out.
On 21 August 2024, the applicant sought an internal review of the Rotunda’s decision, in which she explained that the surname provided in her original request was the adopted surname of her mother, as opposed to her biological surname. The applicant explained that she did not wish for searches to be carried out using this surname, and was instead requesting a record of her mother’s birth in order to uncover her mother’s biological surname. On 26 August 2024, the Rotunda affirmed its original decision. The Rotunda said that, in light of the clarification provided by the applicant in her internal review request, new searches were carried out of the Labour Ward Book for the specified year. The Rotunda stated that despite these additional searches, the Labour Ward Book did not provide enough detail to identify individuals without the full name of the birth mother. As such, the Rotunda stated that without the full name of the birth mother, it was unable to search for and locate any records which may exist relating to the applicant’s request.
On 26 September 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Rotunda’s decision on her request.
During the course of this review, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of the Rotunda’s submissions wherein it outlined the searches undertaken to locate the records sought and its reasons for concluding that no records related to her request exist or could be found. The Investigating Officer invited the applicant to make submissions on the matter. To date, no response has been received.
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 the Rotunda during the course of this review. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the Rotunda was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to records relating to the birth of the applicant’s mother on the basis that no relevant records exist or can be found after all reasonable searches have been carried out to locate them.
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. Our role in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at their decision and also must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. The evidence in “search” cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous and other information about the record management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
As noted above, the Rotunda provided this Office with details of the searches that it undertook to locate relevant records, details of which were provided to the applicant. While I do not propose to repeat those details in full here, I confirm that I have had regard to them for the purposes of this review.
As noted above, the applicant explained to the Rotunda that she does not know the identity of her mother’s biological mother. However, the applicant provided the hospital with a copy of her mother’s baptism certificate which indicates her mother was born in the Rotunda hospital. As I understand it, the baptism certificate does not contain details of her mother’s birth mother as her mother was adopted at birth.
In its submissions to this Office, the Rotunda stated that as the applicant was unable to provide a first or last name of her mother’s mother, it was unable to conduct searches of its Labour Ward Books for a record of the applicant’s mother’s birth.
The Rotunda stated that the mother’s date of birth provided by the applicant was prior to 1933. The Rotunda said that that it only holds Paediatric records from 1933 onwards. It stated “the Rotunda only hold Maternity Records dating back to 1959 (if located) and Paediatric Records dating from 1933- 1950 is extremely limited and we hold no Paediatric Records prior to this year.”
Consequently, the Rotunda said that it holds no individual records of a child’s birth prior to 1933, and therefore a request was not made to search for such records. Instead, it stated that all records of births prior to 1933 are recorded in its Labour and Delivery Books, under the birth mother’s name. The Rotunda stated that the Labour and Delivery books record the first and last name of the birth mother, but do not record the name of the child born. It said that the only details of the child born which are recorded in the Labour and Delivery Books are the time of birth and weight.
The Rotunda stated that while it may hold records in its National Archives, it said that without the applicant being able to provide a full name of the birth mother it would not be possible to ascertain which entry, if located, related to the applicant’s mother. It also stated that it holds no catalogue listing for Paediatric/Maternity Records prior to 1933.
To summarise, the Rotunda’s position is that, even though the applicant has been able to provide her mother’s date of birth, as well as the baptismal certificate stating she was born in the Rotunda, that its inability to locate further information stems from the lack of a full name for the birth mother, which it said is crucial for identifying specific records held within the Labour Ward Book. It stated that without a full name for the birth mother, it is unable to carry out any further searches for records relevant to the applicant’s request, and therefore its position is that after conducting reasonable searches no records can be found or exist.
It is important to note that the FOI Act does not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations can arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found. What the FOI Act requires is that the public body concerned takes all reasonable steps to locate relevant records. Furthermore, it is open to this Office to find that an FOI body has satisfied the requirements of section 15(1)(a), even where records that an applicant believes ought to exist have not been located. We do not generally expect FOI bodies to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that records should or might exist.
Having regard to the information before this Office, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the Rotunda has taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant and that it has adequately explained why it is unable to locate any relevant records. In the circumstances, while I appreciate the applicant will be disappointed by my decision, I find that the Rotunda was justified in refusing access to records relating to the applicant’s request, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, on the ground that no such records exist or can be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Rotunda’s decision to refuse access to the records sought by the applicant under section 15(1)(a) 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