Decision
Mr E and the Department of Justice and Equality (the Department)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: 130265
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: 130265
Published on
Whether the Department has provided a sufficient statement of reasons to the applicant in relation to his request, under Section 18 of the FOI Act, for the reasons for his non-inclusion on a short-list for appointments to positions relating to the EU Presidency in Brussels
11 April 2014
Following an application from a person who is affected by an 'act' of a public body, section 18(1) provides that :
"The head of a public body shall, ...cause a statement, in writing or in such other form as may be determined, to be given to the person:
(a) of the reasons for the act, and
(b) of any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of the act".
This review arose on foot of a previous review application by the same applicant. The previous review decision by the then Information Commissioner was to annul the decision of the Department to refuse the applicant's request for a statement under section 18 of the FOI Act.
The Department organised a competition in 2012 for appointments to posts relating to Ireland's EU Presidency in 2013. The applicant applied for the competition, but his application was unsuccessful, and he was advised that he was not being short-listed for interview on 19 April 2012. He then made a request under section 18 of the FOI Act, for a statement of the reasons why his application was unsuccessful. This was refused by the Department, and the latter decision was annulled on 22 August 2013, as stated above. The Department then reconsidered the matter, and issued a decision containing a statement of reasons to the applicant on 19 September 2013.
On 23 September 2013 the applicant wrote to the Department seeking an internal review of the statement of reasons given, on the basis that he considered it to contain "extensive irrelevances" and to be "argumentative in nature". The Department issued its internal review on 23 September 2013, and this review provided another statement of the reasons for the applicant's lack of success in the competition.
Following the Department's internal review, the applicant remained dissatisfied with the response of the Department, and he sought a review by the Information Commissioner, of the Department's decision, on 30 October 2013. Following communication with this Office, the Department issued a further statement to the applicant on 12 February 2014, providing further clarifications in relation to how the candidate's application was assessed under the various evaluation criteria for the competition.
In carrying out my review, I have had regard to correspondence between the Department and the applicant as set out above, to details of various contacts between this Office and the Department, to details of communications between this Office and the applicant, and in particular to the email sent to him by Mr. Richie Philpott, Investigator, of this Office, dated 17 February 2014, which invited him to make a further submission on the matter, should it be the case that he was still unhappy with the Department's position. The applicant then made a further submission, which indicated his continuing dissatisfaction with the reasons provided by the Department. Having regard to the applicant's response, I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal binding decision. In doing so I have had regard to the contents of the applicant's submission, and I have also had regard to the relevant provisions of the FOI Act.
The applicant made a further submission which seeks referral to the High Court the question of what are the precise requirements for a valid statement of reasons under Section 18 of the FOI Act. In decision numbers 99212/99213, the then Information Commissioner expounded on this matter as follows: "At this point it would be useful to set out what I consider should be the principal features of a statement of reasons having regard to section 18. In my view, a statement of reasons should be intelligible and adequate having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. The statement should be sufficiently clear to enable the requester to understand without undue difficulty why the public body acted as it did. It should identify the criteria relevant to the act and explain how each of the criteria affected the act. However, I do not consider that a statement should necessarily have to contain a detailed clarification of all issues identified by a requester as relevant to a particular act or decision.". Having considered the matter carefully, I am satisfied that this sets out the requirements of section 18 of the Act clearly, and, therefore, that this question does not require referral to the High Court for determination.
My review is concerned solely with the question of whether the statements of reasons, provided to the applicant by the Department, are adequate, for the purposes of section 18 of the FOI Act.
Where a requester applies for a review of a decision of a public body on the grounds that s/he is not satisfied with the contents of a statement of reasons, my role is confined to deciding whether the public body has complied with the requirements imposed on it by section 18, i.e. whether the statement given is adequate. My remit does not extend to examining the appropriateness or otherwise of the particular act for which reasons are sought. In this instance, the 'act' in question is the decision not to include the applicant on the short-list for appointments to positions relating to the EU Presidency in Brussels.
The applicant's final submission, referred to above, appears to object to the statements provided to him by the Department on the grounds that he disputes the validity of the reasons provided by the Department, but that matter is outside the scope of my review. I am solely concerned with the adequacy of the statement of reasons provided to the applicant, and, in determining the adequacy or otherwise of statements of reasons provided by public bodies under section 18, I am guided by the principles as set out above in decision numbers 99212/99213.
I have carefully examined the statements provided by the Department, and in my view they provide more than sufficient detail in relation to the matters at issue. The statements provide detailed explanations of the basis on which the marks were awarded to the applicant in connection with his application, and the reasons for his consequent failure to be included in the short-list of candidates for interview. Furthermore, it would appear that the applicant's continuing objections to the statements provided pertain to the validity of the decisions taken by the Department, as opposed to the reasons for the decisions, and the matter of validity is outside the scope of this review.
I therefore consider that the Department has met its obligations under section 18 of the FOI Act by providing adequate explanations for the decisions which were queried by the applicant. I find accordingly.
Having carried out a review under section 34(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm that the statements provided by the Department to the applicant are satisfactory and meet the requirements of section 18 of the FOI Act.
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