Decision
Mr X and Irish Prison Service
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-149192-T4Y5J4
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-149192-T4Y5J4
Published on
Whether the IPS was justified in refusing access to various records relating to the applicant
27 June 2025
The applicant’s email to the IPS of 9 February 2024 said that he had been detained in two named prisons from 19 April 2021 to 24 May 2023. He also referred to his contacts with the Data Protection Commissioner (the DPC). He said that he was “repeating [his] request for [his] personal data under [the FOI Act]”. He said that he wanted to be provided with “all the information requested since 13 September 2013” and other documents, which I have summarised as follows:
1. Full results of his examination by the sexual assault treatment unit (SATU) of a particular hospital on 1 March 2021, including any notes taken and details of treatments given
2. All his entries in the reception books/In and Out logs from two places of detention, including any records of transports for 27 February 2022, 31 July 2022 and 24 May 2023
3. All of his “phone log calls” (phone log number given)
4. His detention warrants including those for 26 July 2021, 20 July 2022 and 10 December 2022. The applicant indicates that he attended the Family Court on 20 July 2022 and the Criminal Courts of Justice (CCJ) on the other two dates
5. His full medical records and results
6. All records concerning the investigations into and decisions on his complaints (name of an investigator given)
7. All CCTV for his detention in a particular place of detention, including but not limited to that concerning a specific cell
8. All P19s issued against him by various named personnel
9. All records of his personal, legal and professional visits including all video link visits with a named legal firm and any documents signed and submitted to the Legal Aid Board.
On 14 March 2024, the IPS issued a decision on part 6. It granted access to various “Governor Findings” records, but refused access to the related investigation reports under various provisions of the FOI Act. In a further decision dated 14 March 2024, the IPS refused access to medical records under section 15(1)(i) of the FOI Act (records already released and available to requester). This decision did not specify whether it concerned either or both of parts 1 and 5 of the request. The IPS did not issue any decision on the other parts of the request, which effectively amounts to a refusal of access to the relevant records.
On 28 March 2024, the applicant sought an internal review of the documents that he said were “still outstanding”, as follows:
1. His detention warrants, including those for 19 April 2021, 26 July 2021, 24 January 2022, 31 January 2022, 14 January 2022 (Family Court), 1 July 2022, 14 July 2022, 31 July 2022, 20 July 2022 (Family Court), 10 December 2022, 16 January 2023 and 22 March 2023. This appears to correspond with part 4 of the original request.
2. All records of the investigations and findings on his complaints. This appears to correspond with part 6 of the original request.
3. All CCTV relied on in the investigation(s), and all CCTV relating to the applicant during his imprisonment, especially in the GP practice in the relevant places of detention. This appears to correspond with part 7 of the original request, as well as any CCTV relied on in the investigation referred to at part 6.
4. All medical reports received in his name from two named hospitals. This appears to correspond with parts 1 and 5 of the original request.
5. All of his entries in the In and Out books and any transport provided, including on 20 July 2022 to transport him from a particular place of detention to the Family Court. This appears to correspond with part 2 of the original request.
6. All records relating to the P19s issued to him. This appears to correspond with part 8 of the original request.
Part 7 of the internal review application sought access to other records. As the applicant is now aware, however, it is not permissible to widen the scope of an original FOI request during the review process. My review cannot include the records sought at part 7 of the internal review application and I will not refer further to them.
On 15 May 2024, the IPS responded to the application for internal review. I will refer to this as the May 2024 letter.
The May 2024 letter indicated that it was granting partial access to the detention warrants and reception books/In and Out logs, and that it was withholding staff names from these records under section 32(1)(b) of the FOI Act (life or safety of any person). It refused access to CCTV footage under section 32(1)(a)(iv) (security of a penal institution) but did not say whether this refusal concerned parts 6 or 7 or both.
The May 2024 letter indicated that it was granting partial access to the requested P19s and that it was withholding staff names from these records under sections 32(1)(b) and 37(1) (personal information) of the FOI Act. It said that it provided the requested investigation records in its original decision. It said that it had released the applicant’s medical records further to another FOI request and a Subject Access Request (SAR) made by his legal advisors.
On 21 May 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the IPS’s decision, including in relation to the adequacy of its searches for records covered by his request.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act and I have decided to conclude it by way of a formal, binding decision. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the above exchanges, correspondence between this Office, the IPS and the applicant, copies of the records at issue and the provisions of the FOI Act.
This review is carried out under section 22 of the FOI Act. As I explained in my letter to the applicant of 31 October 2024, the scope of my review is confined to examining whether the IPS’s decision on parts 1, 2, and 4-8 of his FOI request of 9 February 2024 was justified under the FOI Act. It does not address parts 3 or 9 of the request because the applicant did not seek an internal review of the IPS’s decision on these.
The May 2024 letter is unclear and misleading. It indicated that the IPS had withheld staff names from the detention warrants, the Prisoner Movement Enquiry and the PIMS Misconduct Summary (P19 summary). However, upon examination, it seemed to me that no details had been withheld from the Prisoner Movement Enquiry or the PIMS Misconduct Summary, and that the names withheld from the warrants did not appear to be those of IPS staff.
I had to ask the IPS to clarify these matters more than once, which is disappointing. As the applicant is aware, however, the IPS now confirms that the details withheld from the 16-page pdf released to him with the May 2024 letter are as follows:
(i) references to and names of Mullingar Hospital medical personnel (redacted from page 3 (Prisoner Movement Enquiry));
(ii) the names and/or signatures of Courts Service Staff, the name of a Garda member, and the name of a third party (redacted from pages 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16 (warrants)).
I asked the applicant to confirm whether he wanted access to the above withheld excerpts. While he subsequently sent me numerous emails about various aspects of the review, he did not comment on the above redactions. I am taking it that my review need not consider these details further.
Regrettably, this review has taken considerable time to conclude. Some of the reasons for the delay were outside of the control of any party. However, I had to ask the IPS several times for clarification on various relevant issues. As is evident from this decision, some matters remain unclear. The IPS has also responded to some of my requests for explanation and comments by querying why the details were needed or by saying that they were not valid requests under the FOI Act.
This Office is entitled to seek any information that is considered relevant to our reviews. Furthermore, the IPS should appreciate that this Office is not familiar with matters relating to the administration of the prison system, or with the significance of particular words or phrases used by the applicant or the IPS. In future, it should ensure that its submissions are clear and that it responds fully to this Office’s queries.
Aside from the quality of its submissions to this Office, the IPS’s handling of the applicant’s request is also very disappointing. It did not issue a decision on all aspects of the request. As I said above, the May 2024 letter is unclear and misleading. The IPS says that the FOI request refers to a particular SAR and a DPC case, and that it had been dealing with the request for additional records as part of the original SAR. It says that, when this Office told it that it had to deal with the matter under FOI, this led to extreme confusion regarding the request and the subsequent appeals. It says also that the applicant has provided it with misleading information, which caused it significant additional work. Its position is that the applicant did not cooperate when it sought to clarify matters relating to his request.
The IPS has been subject to FOI since 1998. It should be aware that a request stating that it is made under the FOI Act must be processed under the Act, regardless of any other comments therein. Furthermore, consideration of whether an applicant was misleading and/or uncooperative may be relevant in a case involving, for instance, section 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act. This is not such a case. I will say, however, that it is in an applicant’s interests to cooperate when an FOI body is seeking to clarify the scope of a request, and to provide relevant information at the earliest opportunity.
The IPS says that its submission was made in confidence to this Office and should not be shared with the requester or the general public. While I have asked it twice to identify any parts of the submission that it feels are sensitive, it has replied only in general terms. Section 25(3) of the FOI Act requires the Information Commissioner to take all reasonable precautions in the performance of his functions to prevent the disclosure of information contained in an exempt record or that would cause the record to be exempt if it contained that information. This provision can have implications for the extent to which we can describe a submission, or give reasons for our decisions. However, we must also comply with fair procedures, such as providing explanations about a body’s searches for records. The FOI Act also requires us to explain, and publish, our decisions. The IPS should be aware of this Office’s obligations, and it should be able to identify the specific parts of a submission that it feels are sensitive. I cannot identify any element of the IPS’s submissions that appears particularly sensitive. Nonetheless, I believe that I have complied with the requirements of fair procedure by summarising the key points of the submission.
There is also an onus on applicants to provide sufficient information to enable the requested records to be identified. At the outset of the review, I asked the applicant for details of the records or types of records he felt are missing. He did not give me any relevant information. After I notified him of the material aspects of the IPS’s submissions on the matter, however, he emailed me on various occasions providing numerous documents and related information. It would have enabled a more efficient review if the applicant had engaged better from the outset.
The applicant says that the only way he can prove certain issues is by obtaining the requested records. However, section 13(4) of the FOI Act requires a review to disregard any reasons that an applicant has or may have for making an FOI request. This means that this Office cannot have regard to the applicant's motives for making his request, except in so far as those motives reflect what might be regarded as public interest factors in favour of release of the records where the Act requires a consideration of the public interest.
The applicant says also that if the IPS’s systems do not provide the records he is seeking, it is a biased system protecting the IPS and allowing abuse. He contends that the IPS’s filing systems do not function properly and cannot therefore be fully searched. He wants this Office to take these matters into account and to raise the matter with the Minister. He says that the IPS is using FOI to protect its own interests, by hiding files when convenient, breaching prisoners’ rights and disregarding transparency and EU law. He asks this Office to take various steps, such as obtaining explanations from the IPS regarding its medical and other treatment of him; examining the legality of his detention and warrants; examining the operation of the various IPS systems including CCTV; advocating for inquiries into such matters; etc. He says that it is nonsensical to have to undergo such a lengthy procedure as the FOI process in order to get his records.
I have already outlined the scope of this review. As I have made the applicant aware, the OIC has no role in examining the IPS’s performance of its functions, including in relation to its administration of the FOI Act, or in examining matters relating to his imprisonment such as the matters outlined above. My review cannot take account of his views on such issues.
I will firstly address the adequacy of the IPS’s searches for records covered by parts 1, 2, and 4-8 of the FOI request.
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act provides that a request for access to a record may be refused where the record does not exist or where it cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain its whereabouts have been taken. A review of an FOI body's refusal of records under section 15(1)(a) assesses whether the body is justified in claiming that it has taken all reasonable steps to locate records of relevance to a request or that the requested records do not exist.
The applicant contends that the IPS is deliberately hiding records and that independent researchers could possibly find them. It is important to note that this Office does not carry out searches for records. Rather, in cases involving section 15(1)(a), our role is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether the decision was justified. This Office must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker in arriving at his/her decision, which generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous other information about the FOI body’s record management practices insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
Furthermore, section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act requires reasonable, not exhaustive searches for records. In general, this Office takes the view that the Act does not require bodies to account for each gap, or perceived gap, in a set of records. In addition, the FOI Act does not require an FOI body to respond to particular queries that a requester may have in relation to any records released.
The IPS says that prisoner files are not destroyed. It says that individual prisoner files, containing electronic records for all places of detention in which a prisoner was placed, are held electronically on its Prisoner Information Management System (PIMS). It says that all medical records are stored electronically on a prisoner’s individual file on the Prison Healthcare Management System (PHMS).
The IPS says that these electronic files are searchable under prisoner name and number (and, in the case of PIMS, using other fields such as date of birth). It says that, where a prisoner number is given, this is used as the search term. As I understand it, where a name only is given, the prisoner number is identified through the name and other personal data, and then searches are carried out using the prisoner number. I also understand that, in order to search PIMS and PHMS, the IPS verified the applicant’s prisoner number by using his name and other details.
The IPS says that a prisoner file is also held within the relevant prison, which holds copies of paper records received or generated e.g. warrants. It says that the file identifiers are the prisoner number and prisoner name. I understand that some but not all hard copy records are scanned onto PIMS for access by Operations Staff.
Part 1 sought records concerning the applicant’s examination by the SATU of a particular hospital on 1 March 2021. Part 5 sought his medical records/results generally.
The IPS says that a full search from date of incarceration to release date was carried out on PHMS for the applicant’s medical records. It says that it also reviewed all records previously released to him further to his FOI and SAR requests. Its position is that it has already released the entirety of the applicant’s medical records, including all held in relation to the SATU examination.
The IPS says it established that the relevant SATU staff visited the applicant in his then place of detention on 1 March 2022, not 1 March 2021. It says that the records released to him further to another FOI request contain seven entries relating to the SATU, including a follow up visit on 6 April 2022. It says that no medical records were provided to the IPS by the SATU team. It says that the SATU keeps results of examinations strictly confidentially and that the applicant will have to make a fresh FOI request to the hospital concerned.
I provided the above details to the applicant. He accepts that part 1 should have referred to 1 March 2022, not 2021. The applicant appears to question how the IPS treated and/or medicated him if it did not receive the SATU records. He says that this Office should verify whether the IPS is refusing to give him the records concerned, or if no treatment was given. He provides copies of 16 pages of IPS medical records, which he says were provided to him by his former solicitors. I note that these refer to the SATU visit. He says that he requested his SATU records under FOI from the relevant hospital, which told him that it had sent his records to the IPS. He provides the hospital’s acknowledgment of his FOI request. The acknowledgement shows that the applicant made an FOI request, in his own right, for the results of his SATU examination and all information about any tests carried out. I asked him more than once for a copy of the hospital’s decision(s) on his request. However, I have not received these, or any other communication issued to the applicant by the hospital saying that it provided his SATU records to the IPS.
In relation to part 5, the applicant describes entries in medical records, which he says he got from his current solicitors. He says that there are no records of hospital referrals made or treatments given. He also queries why the IPS’s decision of 14 March 2024 said that “[a]ll medical records between April and September 2023” had been released in response to a SAR, given that he was released in May 2023.
I raised the applicant’s comments with the IPS. As I understand it, it maintains that it has provided him with the entirety of his medical records, including those relating to the SATU examination, and that the records fully reflect all medical decisions and treatment given, including hospital referrals made. It continues to maintain that no SATU records were provided to the IPS by the relevant hospital. Regarding the reference to “[a]ll medical records between April and September 2023”, it says that while it may not have held any records post-dating the applicant’s release, his SAR was considered to cover any records that may have been created up to the date of the SAR. It says that the records released in response to the SAR date from 8 March 2023 to 31 May 2023.
Analysis
It is not this Office’s role to consider the adequacy of the IPS’s medical treatment of the applicant, or to consider whether the medical records should contain further information.
Having regard to all of the above, and particularly where I have not received any documentation showing that the hospital told the applicant it had sent his SATU records to the IPS, I see no reason to query the IPS further on its searches for either the applicant’s medical records generally or records relating to his SATU examination. I am satisfied that the IPS has taken reasonable steps to search for the requested records and I find that section 15(1)(a) applies to parts 1 and 5 of the request.
Part 2 sought access to the applicant’s entries in the reception books/In and Out logs from relevant prisons, including any records of transports for certain dates.
The IPS says that each prison holds reception books/In and Out logs, in which all movements in and out of a prison are recorded. It says that there is a separate In and Out book to record prisoner movements. It says that such books are considered as operational security records, rather than prisoner records, and that these would have to be searched manually to identify details relevant to the applicant.
However, the IPS says that it did not search the books/logs because no prisoner movement takes place without being documented on PIMS under the prisoner’s number. It lists what it says are various “validation points” on PIMS that enable each movement, which I take are intended to support its argument that PIMS records all movements. It says that the applicant has been given all details of his movements as recorded on PIMS, and that searching the books would be unnecessary and go beyond the reasonable effort required by the FOI Act.
The IPS says that a “full search” was carried out of PIMS, from the applicant’s dates of incarceration to release, for his movement records. Its position is that it has located all relevant records. I note here that the records released with the May 2024 letter include a page entitled “Prisoner Movement Enquiry”, which contains various details regarding the applicant’s movements. It contains entries for 27 February 2022 and 24 May 2023 but not for 31 July 2022. I note that one of the detention warrants sought at part 4 is also dated 31 July 2022. As the applicant knows, I have assumed that he contends he was in court on that date. However, the IPS says that 31 July 2022 was a Sunday and that the courts do not sit at weekends for scheduled hearings. Essentially, it is saying that no entry for the applicant’s movement on 31 July 2022 exists.
I gave the above details to the applicant. In particular, I asked him to confirm whether he was satisfied with the provision of the Prisoner Movement Enquiry, rather than excerpts of the reception books/In and Out logs. He did not respond to my question, or comment on the IPS’s explanations as set out above. Neither, as requested, did he give me any details about the movement that he suggests took place on 31 July 2022.
Analysis
In the absence of comment from the applicant, I am taking it that he is satisfied with the type of record provided to him (i.e. the PIMS Prisoner Movement Enquiry), and that my review need not consider whether the IPS was justified in not searching the reception books/In and Out logs.
It is the IPS’s position that it has provided the applicant with all details relevant to part 2 as contained on PIMS. The applicant gives me no reason to dispute this. Neither does he give me any reason to dispute the IPS’s position that there exists no record of movement on PIMS for 31 July 2022. In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the IPS has carried out reasonable searches for relevant records. I find that section 15(1)(a) applies to part 2 of the request.
Part 4 sought access to the applicant’s detention warrants.
The IPS says that a warrant is issued for the arrest of a person, charging him or her with having committed an indictable offence, by a Judge. It says that a warrant can cover a range of dates to accommodate adjournments in court, etc. It says that it understands a warrant would not be issued for an appearance in court to appeal a conviction, or for an appearance in Family Court.
The IPS says that a “full search” was carried out of PIMS, from the applicant’s dates of incarceration to release, for his detention warrants. It says that all warrants held were released with the May 2024 letter. It says that none exist for the dates mentioned in 2022 because these relate to court appearances for an appeal. It says also that two dates cited by the applicant in his correspondence (31 July 2022 and 10 December 2022) were weekend days. I understand its position to be that the courts do not sit at weekends for scheduled hearings.
I provided the above details to the applicant. In addition, I explained to him why the IPS does not consider that part 4 covers production orders (which are issued where a court, including the Family Court, requests a prisoner to attend a meeting). I said that if he disagreed with the IPS’s position, he should explain why.
The applicant’s response does not comment on the matter of production orders. He maintains that warrants should be issued/reviewed each time he appeared in court, and in particular in the Family Court. He provides copies of documents from the Citizen Information Centre stating that warrants must be renewed for each court appearance. He wants this Office to clarify the status of his warrants.
The applicant describes various events, which I take as arguments that further warrants should exist. He says that he was in court in July 2021 where “a committed warrant” was issued and also where a retrial was ordered. He says that the IPS refused to bring him to court for the retrial in January 2022 and that it allowed a video link later that month. He says that he attended court on a date in July 2022 to discharge his solicitors and that the judge requested him to return to court on a date later in July. He says that the IPS refused to escort him on both occasions. The applicant says that on a further date in 2022, his release was ordered by the family court under habaeus corpus. He says, however, that the IPS returned him to the CCJ and from there to his place of detention.
As I understand it, the IPS’s position remains that it has found and released all warrants relating to the applicant. It says that it complies with all orders of the Court on provision of a warrant. It says that the court cancelled the hearing in January 2022 and that the appearance later that month was by video link. It says that the applicant was in court in July 2022 to attend his appeal (as reflected in the Prisoner Movement Enquiry) and that his planned date of return was cancelled by the court. It says also that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction over criminal matters or the release of prisoners.
Analysis
In the absence of comment from the applicant, I am taking it that part 4 does not seek access to production orders.
I have no role in examining the status of the warrants on file, the applicant’s detention generally, or whether the IPS is legally obliged to hold further warrants in relation to him. Having regard to all of the above, I see no reason to query the IPS further in relation to the matter. I am satisfied that the IPS has taken reasonable steps to search for the requested records and I find that section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies to part 4 of the request.
Part 6 seeks investigation records and decisions arising from the applicant’s complaints. The applicant believes that the relevant records should include CCTV footage.
Further to my queries on the matter, the IPS explains that it has taken part 6 as seeking access only to records concerning the applicant’s Category A complaints. For instance, it says that part 6 refers to an investigator who was assigned to all of the applicant’s Category A complaints.
I informed the applicant of the above and told him that if he disagreed with the IPS’s interpretation of part 6, he should explain why this is the case. The applicant did not comment on this matter.
The IPS says that all Category A complaints records are held on PIMS under the prisoner number. It says that a “full search” was carried out of PIMS, from the applicant’s dates of incarceration to release, for relevant records. It says that it has identified all records relating to its investigation of seven Category A complaints, which include preserved CCTV footage relating to six incidents. The IPS has not provided this Office with any records relating to part 6, other than the released “Governor Findings” records.
I informed the applicant of the IPS’s position. As well as reiterating that part 6 has not been fully granted, he contends that the IPS should have investigated other Category A complaints that he made. He provides me with 181 pages of complaints made to the Inspector of Prisons and a particular prison Governor. He says that the IPS did not act on his complaints or preserve relevant CCTV despite requests for it to do so. He makes allegations as to why he believes the IPS did not preserve the footage. He says that this Office should consider the substantial amount of public monies spent on CCTV and raise concerns about what he says is the IPS’s selective release of CCTV.
I did not consider it necessary to seek the IPS’s views regarding the other complaints that the applicant says it should have investigated. However, I informed the IPS that I was not satisfied that its original decision fully addressed all records covered by part 6, or that a proper internal review had been conducted in relation to the matter. The IPS disagrees. It refers to the confidential nature of the investigation process, and to previous decisions made by this Office affirming its refusal of access to similar records (Case Nos. 150450 and OIC-106183-G1T9X9). It says that the Governor Findings give a general outline of the investigation reports, and that the May 2024 letter references both the investigation records and CCTV.
Analysis
In the absence of comment from the applicant, I have no reason to believe that part 6 sought access to records concerning any non-Category A complaints that he may have made and which the IPS investigated. I do not intend to consider such records in my decision.
As noted, the applicant’s position is that the IPS should have carried out further Category A investigations, and preserved further CCTV footage. However, this Office has no role in examining such matters, or in examining the IPS’s CCTV policies generally. All that I can review is whether the IPS is justified in claiming that it has taken reasonable steps to identify all records relating to the Category A investigations that it carried out. The amount of monies spent on CCTV is irrelevant.
In my view, part 6 can reasonably be taken as seeking all records relating to the IPS’s Category A investigations, as well as the ensuing reports/decisions. The IPS’s decision said that it was releasing various Governor Findings and withholding related investigation reports. However, it did not refer to any records that were created or considered during the investigations, such as the preserved CCTV footage or other records. I do not believe that such records were examined for release.
Neither am I satisfied that a proper internal review was carried out in relation to part 6. The May 2024 letter says that the records sought at part 6 had been provided to the applicant when this was not the case. Furthermore, and although the IPS says otherwise, the May 2024 letter does not mention the withheld investigation records. While it deals generally with CCTV footage, it does not specifically address the preserved CCTV footage.
It seems to me, from its comments during this review, that the IPS considers the investigation reports and related records to be exempt from release because they are of a particular class i.e. that they relate to a confidential investigation process. The IPS should be well aware that this is not an appropriate basis for withholding records. Rather, the contents of each record must be considered, along with all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, and relevant exemptions relied on accordingly. The IPS should also be aware that previous decisions by this Office do not of themselves set precedents for other cases, regardless of how similar they may seem.
In the circumstances, the most appropriate decision for me to make is to annul the IPS’s decision on part 6. I direct it to consider the entirety of the Category A investigative records (including the preserved CCTV) and the related investigation reports/decisions, and to make a fresh decision on these records in accordance with the FOI Act.
Part 7 sought access to all CCTV for the applicant’s detention in a particular place of detention, including but not limited to CCTV concerning a specific cell (the general CCTV footage sought).
The May 2024 letter refused access to CCTV footage under section 32(1)(a)(v) of the FOI Act. Section 32(1)(a)(v) provides for the refusal of a request where access to the record could reasonably be expected to prejudice or impair the security of a penal institution. However, as explained below, it appears that the IPS relied on this provision without actually identifying any relevant records.
When requesting the IPS’s submissions, I said that it was not clear what records the IPS had considered in its decision making. The IPS’s response did not address my query. I again asked it to clarify the matter. The IPS’s revised position on the matter is that it had deleted the general CCTV footage, in line with its CCTV policy, by the time the applicant made his FOI request. It explains that CCTV footage is retained for up to 28 days in accordance with its CCTV Policy. It says that footage is only retained beyond that period where an incident occurs and CCTV footage is identified for preservation. It says that preserved CCTV footage is retained for 4 years and 1 day.
I gave the above details to the applicant. As set out above, he says that he asked the IPS to preserve particular footage. He appears to be of the view that either the CCTV system failed, or that the IPS is hiding footage to protect its own interests.
Analysis
It is evident that the May 2024 letter reflected the IPS’s views as to the disclosure of CCTV generally, and that the IPS did not seek to identify the relevant records. Again, the IPS should know that this is not an appropriate approach to decision-making under the FOI Act.
I have no role in examining whether more footage should have been preserved, the IPS’s operation of its CCTV systems or the merits of its CCTV policy. The FOI request of 9 February 2024 seeks footage from April 2021 to May 2023. The IPS’s position is that, in light of its CCTV policy, the requested footage no longer existed by the time it received the request. I see no reason to dispute the IPS’s position on this matter. I find that section 15(1)(a) applies to part 7.
P19s are sanctions imposed where a prisoner is found to be in breach of Prison Rules. The IPS says that P19 reports are raised on PIMS by Prison Officers, and that Governors hold hearings to give prisoners an understanding of the allegation and to enable them to explain their behaviour. It says that the prisoner is then notified by the Governor of any sanction issued and of their right of appeal.
Part 8 of the request sought access to all P19s issued to the applicant. The applicant maintains that he was issued with at least 24 P19s, and that he was given at least four in one day by two named personnel (Governors A and B). He says that the P19s were issued to him to stop his contact with the outside world after various incidents. He says that there was no misconduct on his part and that he was only complaining to stop abuse. He says that he wants access to the complete files showing how each incident was investigated.
The IPS says that all P19 reports are generated on PIMS under the prisoner’s personal record. It says that a “full search” was carried out of PIMS, from the applicant’s dates of incarceration to release, for records relating to the P19s issued to him. It says that it provided the applicant’s full P19 reports in response to a SAR and, as the applicant knows, is effectively relying on section 15(1)(i) in relation to those records. In addition, the May 2024 letter purported to grant partial access to a PIMS Misconduct Summary (also headed Governor’s Reports), which the IPS says is a summary of all P19s issued to the requester. It says that no other records are created in relation to P19s.
As I informed the applicant, the Misconduct Summary concerns 13 incidents and indicates that no more than two P19s were given to him on any one day. It also summarises the sanctions imposed.
The IPS has given me different details about the number of hearings held, which it says was due to human error. Its most recent position is that hearings were held in relation to 12 incidents, with the last being adjourned. However, I remain unclear on the question of how many P19s (or sanctions, as appropriate) were issued by Governors A and B. The IPS emphasises that these Governors did not issue any P19s, and instead held hearings to give the applicant an opportunity to understand the allegations and offer an explanation. However, other correspondence appears to say that one of the Governors issued sanctions in two cases. The 13 P19 reports (which were recently provided to this Office further to my request for same for the purposes of this review) appear to indicate that both Governors issued sanctions.
As the applicant is aware, part 8 of his request does not seek access to any investigative records that may exist in relation to the P19s he received. Therefore, I will not consider the merits of the IPS’s apparent position that no such records exist.
I have no role in determining the applicant’s claims about the number of P19s that he received, or in examining why P19s were issued to him. Nonetheless, it is disappointing that it has not been possible to clarify the IPS’s position on how many P19s, or sanctions as appropriate, were issued by Governors A and B. It may be that the IPS has taken a particularly narrow interpretation of the questions I have put to it, such that it is differentiating between P19s issued by Prison Officers and the ensuing sanctions that were issued by various Governors. However, I see little merit in pursuing the issue.
It is important to note that the test in section 15(1)(a) is whether all reasonable steps have been taken to locate relevant records. It is possible - and it is clearly envisaged by the Act - that records may exist, but still may not be found after all reasonable steps have been taken to ascertain their whereabouts. The FOI Act does not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations may arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found. There are limits to the measures public bodies must take to locate records sought by applicants under the FOI Act. There is no requirement on bodies to search for records indefinitely. Where this Office considers that a body has conducted all reasonable searches, it will generally affirm the decision on that basis, even where records that are known to have existed at some point have not been located.
The IPS has described its searches of the applicant’s file for records covered by part 8. Its position is that the records it has identified and released to date reflect all P19 reports and sanctions that were issued to the applicant. While the applicant does not accept the IPS’s position, this does not give me a basis to question the IPS further on its searches for relevant records, or to query its position that no further P19 reports (and related entries on the Misconduct Summary) exist. I am satisfied that the IPS has taken reasonable steps to search for the requested records and I find that section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act applies to part 8.
The IPS’s submissions say that a review of the applicant’s physical file is ongoing, and also that it did not carry out searches for any misfiled hard copy or electronic records.
The IPS’s submission of 16 December 2024 undertakes to review the physical file to ensure that all relevant records on this file were released further to the applicant’s earlier requests for records. However, it seems that the review has yet to conclude. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the IPS has carried out a proper search of this file for the purposes of dealing with the FOI request the subject of this review.
Regarding its position that it did not search for any misfiled hard copy or electronic records, the IPS outlines the process for creating a prisoner file and attaching records to it. In summary, each file has a unique identification number, and a photograph of the prisoner is associated with the file. It says that staff of different grades in the General Office ensure that key details (e.g. the prisoner’s name, address, date offence, and unique identifying marks such as scars or tattoos etc) are accurate and present on the file. It says also that the prisoner details are cross checked against the system at regular intervals, such as when being transferred, transported to court, released, etc. I take it from the above that the IPS contends that it is not possible for prisoner records to be misfiled.
I acknowledge the role that strong records management practices must play in the IPS’s security procedures. Nonetheless, I consider it reasonable to expect the IPS to take some steps to ensure that none of the applicant’s records have been misfiled.
I annul the IPS’s effective reliance on section 15(1)(a) in relation to these two specific matters and I direct it as follows:
1. to conduct/conclude its review of the applicant’s paper file and to identify all records therein that are of relevance to this request, including any such records that it may believe are exempt from release (whether under the administrative provisions of section 15 or the substantive provisions of the Act generally);
2. to take appropriate steps to search for any misfiled hard copy or electronic records of relevance to this request; and
3. to make a decision on these matters in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act.
As set out in its decision of 14 March 2024, the IPS’s position is that it released the applicant’s medical records to his various legal advisors in 2023 and that the records are available to him. The IPS relies on section 15(1)(i) of the FOI Act, which provides for the refusal to grant a request where the request relates to records already released, either to the same or a previous requester, and where the records are available to the requester concerned.
I told the applicant that it would be reasonable to assume he would be able to retrieve his records from his legal advisors. I invited him to provide me with evidence (such as an email or letter) showing that the other parties who made an FOI request or SAR on his behalf either did not receive his medical records or will not provide them to him.
The applicant has sent me a copy of an email from his current legal advisors, dated 8 September 2023, explaining why they could not obtain his medical and prison files from his previous advisors. However, and as I made the applicant aware, his email to me of 16 June 2025 states that his previous legal advisors posted his 232-page medical file to him while he was in prison. He has sent me copies of medical records that he says he obtained from those advisors. He has also sent me copies of the entire medical file which he says he very recently obtained from his current solicitors.
Having considered all of the above, I have no basis to conclude that the medical records already released by the IPS are not available to the applicant. I find that section 15(1)(i) applies in relation to those records.
As noted earlier, the IPS’s position is that it has provided the applicant with his P19 reports further to a SAR. While the applicant maintains that the IPS should hold further P19s, his comments give me no reason to consider that the P19 reports already released are not available to him. Furthermore, I note that P19 reports are included in the material that he has sent to me. In the circumstances, I find that section 15(1)(i) applies to the P19 reports.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby vary the IPS’s decision.
I annul the IPS’s decision on part 6 of the request. I direct it to consider the entirety of the Category A investigative records (including the preserved CCTV) and the related investigation reports/decisions.
I annul the IPS’s effective reliance on section 15(1)(a) in relation to its searches of the applicant’s physical file and its searches for misfiled records, and I direct it as follows:
1. to conduct/conclude its review of the applicant’s paper file and to identify all records therein that are of relevance to this request, including any such records that it may believe are exempt from release (whether under the administrative provisions of section 15 or the substantive provisions of the Act generally); and
2. to take appropriate steps to search for any misfiled hard copy or electronic records of relevance to this request.
I direct the IPS to make a fresh decision on all of these matters in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act.
Otherwise, I find that sections 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(i) of the FOI Act apply.
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.
Anne Lyons
Investigator