Decision
Mr X and Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-150006-G5Z9G6
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-150006-G5Z9G6
Published on
Whether the Department was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to further records coming within the scope of the applicant’s request on the ground that no further relevant records exist or can be found
25 November 2025
This review has its background in a previous review this Office carried out in case OIC-140050. In that case, the applicant had made a ten-part FOI request for all records, “in original form and with all meta-data intact”, relating to nine specified forestry applications and one parliamentary question (PQ). The applicant applied for a review of the Department’s decision on his request as he was not satisfied that it had provided all relevant records. During the review, the Department located 116 additional relevant email records it was prepared to release with certain redactions. We therefore annulled the Department ‘s decision and directed it to make a fresh decision on the request.
The Department issued its fresh decision on 14 December 2023 wherein it part-granted the request. It redacted certain information from the records under section 37(1) of the FOI Act which is concerned with the protection of third-party personal information. It also provided certain details of the searches conducted for relevant records. On 19 December 2023, the applicant sought an internal review of the Department’s decision. He said there were still a lot of documents missing, that none of the documents were provided in their original form and with all metadata intact, that none of the documents provided were searchable, and that none were copies as defined in the Act.
In an internal review decision dated 23 January 2024, the Department affirmed its original decision. It also responded to the applicant’s assertions outlined above. It said it was satisfied that all reasonable steps were taken to retrieve all relevant records. Referencing section 17(2) of the FOI Act, it said it provided copies of 261 in PDF format as it had determined that this was the most efficient way of providing the records. It said that when files are downloaded from relevant systems, the metadata is not kept from the original uploader and the owner will change each time someone downloads it. It said it is not possible to process electronic records without impacting on the metadata i.e. the properties are altered each time a document is opened, saved, renamed etc. It said files were previously saved in an image format which is why they could not be searched. It said the Department improved this process by moving to PDF a number of years ago. It said it considered that the records provided are records as defined under the FOI Act.
On 21 June 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Department’s decision. In his application, he said that there are still important documents outstanding and that “many of those already provided are inadequate”. He said that he believes that the Department is purposely withholding important documents. He said that there must be some explanation for how, following a search and internal review, another 261 documents were suddenly found. He also made submissions in respect of the original decision and the internal review, the relevant document properties and the individual who he said created/authored them. During the course of this review, the Department identified five further records which it released to the applicant. It noted that one of the records fell outside the date range of the request. The applicant’s position upon receipt was that there was still “a lot of very important information missing”.
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 Department and the applicant. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
The schedule of records provided by the Department lists 331 records. However, I note that the Department included in the numbered schedule both unredacted and redacted copies of the same records, effectively adding duplicates to the list. There are, in fact, 261 unique records identified.
The applicant’s position is that records falling within the scope of the request are still outstanding. This review therefore necessarily requires an examination of whether section 15(1)(a) of the Act applies, which allows for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found. The Department was asked to provide submissions in respect of searches undertaken and the applicant was provided with a summary of those submissions. He provided further submissions in response. The Department’s position is that no further relevant records exist or can be found. Accordingly, this review is concerned solely with whether the Department was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the Act, to further relevant records on the ground that no such records exist or can be found after all reasonable searches have been undertaken to locate their whereabouts.
Before setting out my substantive analysis of this matter, I wish to make a number of preliminary points and comment on submissions advanced by the applicant which go beyond the scope of this review.
The applicant made a significant number of submissions to this Office during the course of this review. These range from short emails attaching supporting documents to multi-page submissions covering a variety of matters. I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to describe all of the submissions made and arguments advanced in this decision. However, I confirm that I have considered all submissions received.
In his submissions to this Office, the applicant argued that this Office should ask the Department for a reasonable explanation as to why records were not identified during its initial processing of his request. He said that a “detailed explanation” should be provided in respect of each of the 176 records, which I understand to be a reference to the 60 records identified during the first internal review that was conducted as referenced in case OIC-140050 and the 116 additional records identified during the first review undertaken by this Office. As the records have been located and considered for release, I do not intend to expend valuable resources in considering these matters. Instead, as I have outlined above, the scope of my review is confined to whether the Department has, at this stage, taken all reasonable steps to locate all relevant records.
The applicant also raised concerns about the format in which records have been provided. I note that the Department explained in its internal review decision the basis for the format used. I do not intend to explore this issue further or to address concerns relating to metadata. The review is limited to the section 15(1)(a) issue, and the question of reasonable searches. The applicant was notified of this position. In response, he again queried why the relevant division converted all emails to PDFs and refused to provide them in their original format. Notwithstanding his further queries, I remain satisfied with the reasoning provided by the Department in this regard and will not consider the matter further.
The applicant has made a number of serious allegations in respect of the Department’s handling of this and other FOI requests. It is his position that the Department is purposely withholding records, that documents have been falsified, forged or edited, and that the Department has not been honest in its dealings with the applicant and this Office. He has advanced allegations in respect of corruption and criminality on the part of the Department. The Department’s position is that at each stage of the process all records that were located were released and at no stage were any records withheld or altered. It said that it strenuously denies the assertion that it has now or ever purposely withheld documents.
In correspondence dated 11 June 2025, the applicant again raised concerns about misconduct and referenced the Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight Against Corruption, the Criminal Justice Act 2011, the Civil Service Code of Conduct of Standards and Behaviour, and the statutory functions of this Office as set out within the FOI Act 2014. He sought confirmation as to whether the suspected criminal activity he alleged was being considered as part of this review, whether the Department had provided explanations in respect of its failure to disclose certain documents, and whether this Office intended to notify or consult with appropriate authorities.
In response, the applicant was informed that this review is being carried out under section 22 of the FOI Act and is confined to the decision made by the Department in respect of his FOI request. This Office has no remit to investigate complaints, to adjudicate on how FOI bodies perform their functions generally, or to act as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with respect to actions taken by FOI bodies. This review will not examine allegations that records were deliberately amended and/or deliberately withheld. In correspondence with the applicant, this Office’s Investigator referenced section 52 of the Act, which provides that where a request has been made in respect of a record, a person who, without lawful excuse and with intention to deceive, destroys or materially alters a record shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction to a class B fine. The Act contains no further details on how such matters should be pursued. The question of whether an offence has taken place is a matter for investigation by An Garda Síochána (AGS) and ultimately it is a matter for the DPP as to whether or not to prosecute an alleged breach. This Office has no role in deciding whether an offence has, in fact, occurred. It is open to anyone to make a complaint to AGS in respect of a suspected offence, including the applicant. Indeed, I note that during the course of the review the applicant stated that he reported relevant matters to AGS. For the avoidance of doubt, this Office does not intend to make a complaint to AGS in respect of this case or indeed to report the allegations made to another authority. This applicant was notified of this position.
The applicant also expressed general dissatisfaction with the remit and scope of this Office and the manner in which the review has been progressed. He referenced previous decisions issued in respect of FOI requests he has made. He was dissatisfied with the manner in which his position and submissions were referenced and he was unhappy that submissions made by the Department were included in earlier decisions “without any evidence” as to whether they are true. He said that considering “the lies [the Forestry Service] tells OIC” and that this Office includes those “lies” in decisions without any evidence as to their veracity, he would like the opportunity to comment on any responses provided by the Department before any decision is made. The statutory review undertaken by this Office is not adversarial in nature and, as such, it is not the practice of this Office to exchange submissions between parties to a review. However, it is important to note that, before any binding decision is reached, we take care to ensure that the parties are notified of material issues arising for consideration. I am satisfied that all material points raised by the Department in this case were brought to the applicant’s attention in the usual manner. Again, the applicant was notified of this position.
In response, and with reference to the non-adversarial nature of our reviews, the applicant again expressed dissatisfaction and said that he expected the OIC to actively protect and defend his rights but that this does not appear to happen. It is important to note that section 43 of the FOI Act provides that the Commissioner shall be independent in the performance of his functions. While the applicant may have expected this Office to take a more active role in respect of the allegations he has advanced, I am satisfied that our remit has been adequately and repeatedly explained and that we have acted in accordance with it.
In later submissions, the applicant said that he no longer accepts any of the Department’s statements and neither should this Office. He said that “at this point, every claim by the Department should be independently verified”. He urged this Office to treat the case with the “level of scrutiny that these facts demand”. Again, this position evidences a misunderstanding in respect of the remit and resources of this Office and the scope of a review under section 22 of the FOI Act. Section 44 of the FOI Act gives the Commissioner the power to carry out an investigation into the practices and procedures of an FOI body for the purposes of compliance with the FOI Act. Under section 44, it would, in principle, be open to this Office to carry out an investigation of the Department if we had concerns about ongoing and widespread poor practice and non-compliance with the FOI Act. However, a decision to undertake a general investigation under section 44 of the Act is not one that is taken lightly and is quite uncommon. Among the factors considered in deciding whether to initiate an investigation and publish a report are the resources currently available to the Office, whether the process and outcome are likely to be concerned with systemic issues within public bodies, and whether the investigation has broad public interest implications or has potential to bring about improvement in FOI practices and procedures across the public sector. To date, this Office has conducted only a small number of investigations under section 44, all of which involved more than one public body and had wider relevance across the public service. While there is no doubt that the Department’s handling of the applicant’s request has been poor from the outset, in the particular circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that an investigation under section 44 is not warranted.
Finally, I must note that I gave careful consideration as to whether I should exercise my discretion to discontinue this review under section 22(9)(a) of the FOI Act. That section provides that the Commissioner may discontinue a review in certain circumstances including;
• where the application forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests (subsection (vi)), and
• where accepting the application would, by reason of the number or nature of the records concerned or the nature of the information concerned, require the examination of such number of records or an examination of such kind of the records concerned as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of work of his or her Office (subsection (vii)).
As is evident, the applicant’s engagement with this Office became increasingly forensic during the course of the review. While his initial FOI request was broad, his subsequent submissions became increasingly detailed, with queries and concerns raised in respect of single records and explanations sought in respect of very specific matters. It seems to me that the repeated references to alleged misconduct on the part of the Department implies that the applicant is seeking to accomplish an objective unrelated to the access process. The applicant also referenced independent verification of searches undertaken by the Department. That is not the role of this Office. Our role in these cases is to review the decision to refuse the request for access to records on the ground that the records sought does not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps have been taken to ascertain their whereabouts and to decide whether that decision was justified. It seems to me that the applicant holds unrealistic expectations in respect of the role of the Commissioner. To progress the review in the manner sought by the applicant would have undoubtedly caused a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of work of this Office.
While in the circumstances I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision, I would urge the applicant to carefully consider the manner in which any future FOI requests are made, noting the comments made in this section of the decision and the remit of this Office.
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 in arriving at his/her decision and I must also assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. This evidence in such cases generally consists of the steps taken to search for the record 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. It is important to note that the FOI Act does not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found. Furthermore, this Office can 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.
As noted above, the applicant made a significant number of submissions prior to the Investigator seeking focused submissions from the Department. I do not intend to outline those submissions in full but will endeavour to summarise them such that the applicant’s main arguments are referenced.
Many of the applicant’s submissions focus on why certain systems were not searched. In particular, the applicant queried why a search of the Microsoft 365 system was not undertaken. He also queried why the Ecology Tracking System (ETS) and the system for tracking PQs were not searched, as well as any fileshare systems in use. In relation to inboxes searched, the applicant queried why certain cohorts of staff were not referenced and also queried how the relevant division (the Forest Service) identified staff involved.
The applicant said that Inspector Certification Reports were not provided. He said that this was “unbelievable” and that previous FOI requests produced dozens of these reports. He said that each Inspector Certification report can be 10 pages or more and each application can have multiple reports at each stage. He said that files cannot be certified at any stage without a completed report. He said that no ‘worklists’ were provided. He also referenced Further Information Requests (FIRs) and information referred to as ‘Inspector’s Advice/Remarks’. His position appears to be that such information was not provided. In a later submission he referred to particular FIRs and said that there were no associated certifications or entries in the IFORIS system. He said that he needs certifications, original copies of FIRs and “all original information” about them.
In subsequent submissions, the applicant referenced emails which he said were not provided to him. He referenced earlier versions of certain reports which were released, as well as related emails and worklists.
The applicant made submissions in respect of his request for all records relating to a particular PQ and the question of whether such records come within the scope of the FOI Act by virtue of section 42(j). The applicant also said that WhatsApp and text messages should be provided. He said that Inspectors have different phones for work and are required to text applicants prior to an inspection.
In correspondence dated 3 March 2025, the applicant provided this Office with screenshots of particular emails. He said that the emails mention attachments which were not provided to him. The relevant Investigator engaged with the applicant in respect of this submission, seeking further information about the emails provided. The applicant said that he did not want this Office to ask the Department for the specific attachments he referenced. He said that he wants “all the attachments and all the emails, so do not give them any hints please”.
The Investigator responded and said that she intended to raise the following matters with the Department: records held in the relevant email accounts of archaeologists, ecology and admin; records held in the system used for managing PQs; records in the form of text messages and WhatsApp messages; “Status reports”; full Inspector Certification reports; ETS screenshots; and worklists. However, in respect of other more specific records that the applicant believed to be missing (e.g. as referenced in his email of 3 March), she noted his request that we not give the Department these specific details. She confirmed that this is an inquisitorial process, and in order for us to progress the investigation process we need to put questions to the FOI body. She said that in circumstances where the applicant does not wish us to put such specifics to the Department for comment, we cannot give such records further consideration.
The applicant sent a further submission in response. He said that the “most important” information is the Ecology information and the Inspector Certifications. He referenced the following information in respect of various applications listed in his request: certification reports, ETS reports, emails from named individuals, IFORIS notes (he also said that IFORIS notes were unacceptable in respect of certain applications and that full screenshots or reports were needed), details of a JIRA request, copies of photographs and plots, copies of remedial works letters, certain attachments, Appropriate Assessment Screening Reports and Determinations, details, minutes and participants in respect of a particular online meeting, emails and responses from a named TD, and an archaeology report and associated correspondence.
Having considered the applicant’s position and the various documentation provided, the Investigator sought submissions from the Department. The Department was asked to specify searches undertaken and was also asked to provided responses to questions informed by the applicant’s submissions.
The Department described its processes for managing forestry applications and storing relevant records as follows:
• The Department uses a system called IFORIS (Integrated Forestry Information System), which is a web application that manages the lifecycle and payment of Forestry applications.
• Registered Foresters use the corresponding iNet system.
• The systems work independently and also as a conduit for correspondence between Foresters and the Department in relation to, for example, additional documents that are needed or to amend errors on documents.
• A Forester will start his/her application (on behalf of a client) on iNet and receive a unique contract number (CN – Afforestation/TFL – Tree Felling Licence) for that application. Once the Forester has submitted/uploaded all required documentation, the application becomes visible on the IFORIS system and processing can commence.
• All pertinent documentation for that application is stored here under the unique number, along with correspondence from/to inspectors/foresters/applicants. This ensures that for queries in relation to applications the Department can depend on all relevant records to be in one centralised area.
• At times, email correspondence is utilised for internal discussion but may not be uploaded to IFORIS. Each staff member is responsible for saving emails to IFORIS that they judge are pertinent to the applications and should be added to the Department’s records. Emails that are not saved, will be deleted after 24 months from the Department’s email system, in line with the email retention policy.
• It is important that the relevant records are filed appropriately and retained to show the process. In the event that a licence is appealed to the independent Forestry Appeals Committee (FAC), these are the records that would be provided to demonstrate the process and steps involved and they satisfy this requirement.
The Department said that, in making its initial decision on the FOI request, it focused on the records contained in IFORIS as this was what was considered reasonable based on the size of the request. It said that, in hindsight, if it had considered at the time the request was received that every piece of possible correspondence that the administration section, payments section, each individual inspector, archaeologists and ecologists had created that was not filed onto the IFORIS system or on to the paper file were being sought, then a decision would have been made to ask the applicant to narrow the scope of the request, or it would have potentially been refused under Section 15(1)(c), or it would have had to charge search and retrieval fees (section 27 of the FOI Act refers).
Notwithstanding that, the Department said that further to the initial appeal to this Office, it assigned a Forestry Inspector to assist the FOI unit in following up with individual inspectors and collating further records to provide to the applicant. It said that further to the location of additional records (I understand this to refer to the 116 email records found during the earlier review OIC-140050, which resulted in the decision being remitted to the Department), these records were released to the applicant.
Further to that fresh decision (14 December 2023) being appealed, and submissions being requested from this Office, the Department said that it made further enquiries with individuals specified by the applicant and that it found five additional records that it released on 29 May 2025. The Department noted that these records were of an administrative nature and had no bearing on the decisions made in the forestry applications at issue. The Department also provided responses to specific questions raised by the Investigator. These responses were provided to the applicant and I do not intend to repeat them here.
In correspondence dated 12 June 2025, the Investigator notified the applicant of the submissions received from the Department and provided him with an opportunity to make any further submissions. She also included her preliminary views in respect of the application of section 15(1)(a), noting that, at that point, she was of the view that the Department had conducted all reasonable searches to locate relevant records.
In response, the applicant expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the correspondence received. He attached a submission outlining what he referred to as 28 “very serious issues”. He described this as “a record of the OIC’s failure to apply scrutiny, enforce the Act, or uphold fair procedures”. In summary, the applicant made submissions in respect of:
• Certain background information provided by the Department
• The fact that the Department did not seek to narrow the scope during the processing of the requests and the manner in which previous requests were handled
• The Department’s position that it only searched IFORIS and whether this Office accepted that this was appropriate
• The appropriateness of the Department appointing a Forestry Inspector to assist in respect of the FOI request
• The existence of further records from the Archaeology and Ecology sections in respect of two of the applications
• The appropriateness of personnel being asked to search their own email inboxes and sent items and the quality of searches conducted in respect of the accounts of named individuals
• The response provided by the Department in respect of the ePQ system and the technical standards associated with such a system
• The Department’s “failure to address the use of text messages” and the response provided in respect of WhatsApp
• The Department’s response in respect of the ETS and its replacement system
• Certification Reports, the response provided by the Department, and whether they are “generally made public” as submitted
• The Department’s position that worklists are not a stagnant record that can be released
• The existence of certain records comprising labelled photographs of sites and related records which he said were not provided
• A record which he said undermines the Department’s claims that certain JIRA records do not exist
• The Forest Service’s “pattern of using the IFORIS system selectively”
• Whether records created by retired or former staff members can be provided
• The Department’s claim that no further records relating to a particular application could be found and evidence the applicant said disputes this
The applicant strongly objected to the Investigators preliminary views in respect of the application of section 15(1)(a). He said that he had submitted proof that records were withheld, that key officials had their accounts searched without independent verification, that certain records were dismissed without proper searches being conducted, and that the Department’s submissions contain falsehoods and contradictions. He said that he strongly disagrees with the conclusion that it was reasonable for the Department to restrict its searches to the IFORIS system and hard copy files because his request was broad. He said that the Department did not contact him to clarify the scope or refuse the application on the basis of section 15(1)(c) (which concerns voluminous requests). He said that the Department instead reinterpreted his request unilaterally and excluded entire systems. He said that accepting this as reasonable would contradict the letter and spirit of the FOI Act. He said that the Investigator’s correspondence appears to pressure him into withdrawing by implying that a final, public and adverse decision is inevitable. It was subsequently confirmed with the applicant that while the correspondence included preliminary views in respect the application of section 15(1)(a), this position is not binding and any submissions or observations made in response would be considered in full.
The applicant also advanced allegations that this Office did not consider submissions received based on email properties and the time at which emails were created. I do not consider it necessary to rebut such allegations in detail. Suffice to say, I confirm that all submissions received have been considered. The applicant also sought explanations in respect of why particular information was included in the search notification which issued to him. I do not propose to provide responses to all such queries. I am satisfied that the relevant Investigator appropriately notified the applicant of the detail of submissions made by the Department.
The applicant also made submissions in respect of an individual he believes to have “secretly authored” Departmental responses and submissions. I will not engage with such arguments as I do not consider them to fall within the scope of this review.
The applicant indicated that he had further submissions to make but that he required further time to formulate same. He was granted an additional week. He responded and requested a much more considerable extension. In the particular circumstances, the relevant Investigator granted same. No further submissions were received.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties in this case. The question before me is whether, at this point, the Department has taken all reasonable steps to find records falling within the scope of the applicant’s request. It seems to me that what constitutes ‘reasonable steps’ in the context of section 15(1)(a) will always be dependent on the circumstances of the case. Where searches should be focused and the form that searches should take will depend on the nature of the records sought and the broader circumstances. The question of what is reasonable will generally depend on the particular circumstances arising. It is open to this Office to conclude that a body has undertaken all reasonable searches even where records were known to have existed but cannot be found. Furthermore, this Office does not generally expect public bodies to carry out extensive or indefinite searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that more records should or might exist or rejects a body’s explanation as to why a record does not exist.
The applicant’s original FOI request was very broad. The applicant sought all records relating to nine forestry applications and a parliamentary question. It is important to note that under section 12(1)(b) of the Act, a request for records must contain sufficient particulars in relation to the information concerned to enable the record to be identified by the taking of reasonable steps. The difficulty with framing a request in the manner of “all records” relating to particular matters is that it invariably runs the risk of giving rise to disputes in relation to the scope of the request.
I consider that the most appropriate consideration in this case is whether the searches undertaken by the Department constitute reasonable steps for the purposes of section 15(1)(a). I do not consider it appropriate or necessary to consider whether each and every point raised by the applicant has been addressed. While it may be a source of frustration, the FOI Act is not concerned with why an FOI body acted in the way that it did or the administration of its functions. Nor is our role to facilitate an applicant’s examination and interrogation of the processing of records. My role is to determine whether the Department’s decision in respect of the applicant’s request was justified. In respect of the searches undertaken, the Department initially focused on IFORIS and records held on that system. It later appointed a forestry inspector to assist the relevant unit in identifying further records that may have been held by different staff members. During the course of this review, it said that it engaged with individuals named in the applicant’s submissions and located additional records as a result. It said that all records located during its search process were released.
In respect of the Department’s decision to focus its initial searches on a particular system, I note that the system in question is used to manage the lifecycle and payment of forestry applications. The Department said that all pertinent documentation pertaining to an application is saved on the system and that this means that the Department can rely on the fact that relevant records will be in one centralised area. I note that the Department said that it also searched hard-copy files and relevant email folders. I also note that the FOI body said that it would have approached the initial request differently had it been aware of the scale of searches required or expected by the applicant.
The applicant’s position is that by focusing its searches in the manner in which it did, the Department effectively “reinterpreted” his request without consultation or agreement. In short, I do not agree. Where searches should be focused and the form that searches should take will depend on the nature of the records sought and the broader circumstances. The question of what is reasonable will generally depend on the particular circumstances arising. I accept that, in general, the FOI body is best placed to determine which of its areas, sections or systems might hold the records sought. However, I expect the FOI body to be in a position to justify any decision to limit its searches in such a manner. In the current case, it seems to me that the Department has sufficiently justified its decision to focus its searches on IFORIS, any associated hard copy files and relevant email folders. This appears to be a reasonable approach to take in the context of a very broad FOI request.
In addition to the above, the applicant’s latest submission detailed various other points of contention. I consider that many of the arguments advanced fall outside the scope of this review or comprise requests for explanations for actions undertaken by the Department or this Office. However, I do wish to comment on certain submissions which relate to a particular category of records. The applicant has repeatedly referenced certification reports. The Department’s position is that all such reports have been provided. The applicant’s position is that this is untrue. He said that certification occurred but no underlying reports were released. He said that the records released contain only the last page of the report and he referenced similar reports provided to him in the past. It seems to me that the dispute centres on the nature of the reports sought by the applicant and his belief that more detailed documentation exists. The Department’s position is that there are no further records associated with the applications referenced. I note that the schedule of records includes a number of records entitled Inspector Certification Reports which have been released. I am satisfied with the approach taken by the Department and with the responses provided, notwithstanding the applicant’s evident distrust of statements emanating from the Department. I do not consider this to be a sufficient reason for me to annul this aspect of the Department’s decision.
In respect of the part of the applicant’s request which concerned a PQ, I am satisfied that searching the ePQ system constitutes a reasonable step in the circumstances. The applicant’s submissions in respect of this part of the request focus on the technical functionality of that system and allegations about the authorship of the response. He requested that we “investigate the origin and integrity of the PQ response”. This is not the role of this Office. I am satisfied that the searches undertaken by the Department were reasonable and that is the matter at issue.
In sum, having carefully examined the submissions made by the Department and the responses provided by the applicant, it appears to me that no further relevant records exist or can be found after the taking of reasonable steps. This latter finding forms the crux of this decision. I am of the view that the Department has conducted all reasonable searches to locate relevant records and that section 15(1)(a) therefore applies. I am satisfied that the Department has focused its searches appropriately. I note that it has released a significant number of records to the applicant. I accept that the piecemeal manner in which the records were released is not ideal and that such an approach may justifiably frustrate applicants and lead to distrust in respect of the body’s position. However, in the context of a broad FOI request with numerous sub-sections, I consider that the steps taken by the FOI body to date comprise reasonable searches for the purpose of section 15(1)(a).
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Department’s decision to refuse access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to further relevant records coming within the scope of the applicant’s request on the ground that no further relevant records exist or can be found, having taken all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts,
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