Decision
Mr Ken Foxe, Right to Know CLG and Irish Prison Service
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-145404-P4L1W0
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-145404-P4L1W0
Published on
Whether the IPS was justified, under Section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act, in refusing statistical data relating to prison assaults for Q1 and Q2 of 2023
18 April 2024
In a request dated 2 October 2023, the applicant sought access to data relating to prison assault figures for Q1 and Q2 of 2023. The applicant provided the IPS with a link to similar data for previous years that was published on its website. The IPS issued an acknowledgement letter to the applicant on 2 October 2023, but failed to issue an original decision. Section 19 of the FOI Act provides that where notice of a decision under section 13 is not given to the requester before the expiration of the period specified, the request is deemed to be refused. On 1 December 2023, the applicant made an internal review request on the basis of a deemed refusal.
On 3 January 2024, as the IPS did not issue its internal review decision within the relevant time period, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the effective refusal of his request by the IPS. On 15 January 2024, the IPS issued its internal review decision, in which it refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act. Section 15(1)(c) provides for the refusal on administrative grounds of a request for records where granting the request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of work of the FOI body. The IPS stated that no records were currently available, but that the statistics on assaults reported within the Irish Prison estate in the year 2023 would be published in the first quarter of 2024. On 16 January 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the decision by the IPS. He said the IPS provided no data in response to his request even though such information is gathered as part of its ongoing work.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the correspondence outlined above and to the submissions made by the IPS during the course of this review. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the IPS was justified in its decision to refuse the applicant's request under section 15(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that processing the request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, or disruption of its work.
Section 15(1)(c) provides that an FOI body may refuse to grant a request if it considers that granting the request would, by reason of the number or nature of the records concerned or the nature of the information concerned, require the retrieval and examination of such number of records or an examination of such kind of records concerned as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, work (including disruption of work in a particular functional area) of the body.
However, section 15(4) provides that a request cannot be refused under section 15(1)(c) unless the body has assisted, or offered to assist, the requester in amending the request so that it no longer falls to be refused under that section. As such, before I can consider whether the IPS was justified in refusing the request under section 15(1)(c), I must first consider whether it complied with the provisions of section 15(4) before doing so.
The FOI Act is silent on the precise nature or level of the assistance to be offered under section 15(4), and this Office takes the view that before a body can refuse a request under section 15(1)(c), the body must first have provided reasonable assistance to the requester in amending the request, or have offered to provide assistance in cases where the requester is not willing to amend the original request, in order to comply with the requirements of section 15(4). On the question of what constitutes reasonable assistance, this Office considers that the level or nature of the assistance to be provided can vary significantly from case to case and will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. It will often also depend on the willingness of the parties to engage in meaningful discussion on what might be acceptable in the circumstances.
In this particular case, the IPS did not assist, or offer to assist, the requester in amending his request so that it no longer fell to be refused under section 15(1)(c). The IPS acknowledged in their submissions to this Office that they did not offer assistance to the requester. As section 15(4) provides that a request cannot be refused under section 15(1)(c) unless the body has assisted, or offered to assist, I find that the IPS did not comply with the provisions of section 15(4) in this case. My finding that the IPS did not comply with the provisions of section 15(4) is, of itself, sufficient for me to find that it was not justified in refusing the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the Act, and I find accordingly. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the most appropriate course of action is to annul the decision of the IPS and to direct it to undertake a fresh consideration of the request.
Finally, as noted above, in its internal review decision the IPS informed the applicant that the statistics for assaults in 2023 would be published in the first quarter of 2024. In recent submissions to this Office the IPS said it expects the statistics will be available shortly. In the circumstances, it seems to me that it may be possible to settle this matter before a new decision is necessary. However, if no settlement is reached with the applicant, I expect the IPS to process his request afresh in line with the provisions of the Act.
In summary, I find that the IPS was not justified in refusing the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the Act, as it failed to comply with the requirements of section 15(4).
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the decision of the IPS to refuse the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the Act on the basis that it did not comply with the provisions of section 15(4) of the Act. I direct the IPS to conduct a fresh decision making process on the applicant’s request.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Richard Crowley, Investigator