Decision
Ms X and Office of Public Works
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-151704-N7R8T3
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-151704-N7R8T3
Published on
Whether the OPW was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act, to records related to changes made to the Oireachtas Library and Reading Room since 2017, on the ground that processing the request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of the work of the OPW
30 October 2024
In a request dated 21 May 2024, the applicant sought access to records relating to changes to the interior and the exterior of the Oireachtas Library and Reading Room from 2017.
In a decision dated 10 June 2024, the OPW refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act. The OPW suggested that the applicant consider reviewing the date range of the records sought and being more specific in the type of records sought in her request. On 5 July 2024, the applicant requested an internal review of the OPW’s decision. She said that she and her colleagues had made a number of FOI requests and claimed the OPW has effectively denied access to any relevant records. On 30 July 2024, the OPW affirmed its original decision.
On 2 September 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the OPW’s decision. In her application, the applicant reiterated concerns she had expressed in her internal review request in relation to the matter.
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 applicant and by the OPW. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the OPW was justified, under section 15(1)(c) of the Act, in refusing the applicant’s request dated 21 May 2024.
Section 15(1)(c) provides for the refusal of a request where the FOI body 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 of the body (including disruption of work in a particular functional area).
However, section 15(4) provides that a request cannot be refused under section 15(1)(c) unless the body has first assisted, or offered to assist, the requester in amending the request so that it no longer falls to be refused under that section. Accordingly, before I consider whether the OPW 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). 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.
When requesting submissions from the OPW in this case, the Investigating Officer drew its attention to section 15(4) of the Act and queried whether it had assisted or offered to assist the applicant in amending her request so that it no longer fell to be refused under section 15(1)(c). As noted above, the OPW had stated in its original decision on 10 June 2024 that the applicant might consider reviewing the date ranges and being more specific in the type of records sought. The Investigating Officer asked the OPW if it assisted or attempted to assist the applicant in doing this so as to meet the section 15(4) requirement.
In its submissions to this Office, the OPW acknowledged that it did not follow the correct procedures when dealing with the applicant’s request. It said that an offer of assistance was not made to the applicant which it said should have been done before refusing the request under section 15(1)(c). The OPW said that it would be willing to process the applicant’s request correctly by considering it afresh.
Having reviewed the OPW’s submissions, I find that the OPW did not comply with section 15(4) of the Act before refusing the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c). In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the most appropriate course of action is to annul the decision of the OPW and to direct it to undertake a fresh consideration of the request. If the applicant is not satisfied with the new decision made by the OPW, the usual rights of review will apply.
If the OPW remains of the view that the request is voluminous, it must first comply with section 15(4) if it is to once again consider refusal of the request under section 15(1)(c). I would encourage both parties to engage with each other on the scope of the request.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the OPW’s decision to refuse the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act on the basis that it did not first comply with the provisions of section 15(4) of the Act. I direct the OPW 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