Decision
Mr Mark Tighe of The Sunday Times and Radio Telefís Éireann
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: 120182
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: 120182
Published on
Whether RTE was justified in its decision to refuse to the applicant's request on the basis of section 10(1)(c) of the Act due to the volume of records at issue in this case
30 April 2014
On 17 March 2012 the applicant made a request to RTE under the FOI Act for "All internal memos and correspondence received and sent by RTE staff, relating to the following:
On 17 April 2012 RTE issued its decision to the applicant, deciding to refuse the request on the grounds that the records are exempt under sections 21, 22 and 27 of the FOI Act and on the basis that the statutory Instrument (S.I. 115/2000) that brought RTE under the scope of FOI exempts records about the programme-related functions of RTE from access under FOI.
On 8 May 2012 the applicant sought an internal review of RTE's decision. On 13 June 2012, RTE's Internal Reviewer upheld the original decision. Subsequently, on 21 July 2012, this Office received a request from the applicant for a review of RTE's decision.
In conducting my review, I have had regard to details of the submissions of RTE, to correspondence between the applicant and RTE and to correspondence between this Office and the applicant. I have also had regard to the provisions of the FOI Act.
The issue in this review is whether RTE was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought on the basis of the exemptions it claimed.
Analysis and Findings
During the course of our review, this Office wrote to RTE requesting a copy and schedule of the records which are the subject of the applicant's FOI request. In its reply RTE stated that the retrieval and scheduling of all relevant documents in the context of such a vague request would impose an enormously onerous obligation on RTE and would incur significant costs. RTE also stated that had all the categories not fallen within possible exemptions, RTE would have been obliged to revert to the applicant asking him to narrow the scope of his request on the basis that the extent of documentation sought is too far-reaching.
In order for this Office to consider whether RTE's original decision to refuse records was justified, this would require RTE to identify all records which come within the scope of the applicant's original FOI request, to decide on a record-by-record basis whether to grant or refuse access to the records, or parts thereof, and to specify any exemptions it considers appropriate in the event that it decides to refuse access. Following this correspondence RTE contend that section 10(1)(c) of the FOI Act applies on the basis that the extent of documentation in this case could potentially extend to tens of thousands of documents.
Section 10(1)(c) provides that a public body may refuse 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 the records concerned as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of work of the body. However, section 10(2) provides that a public body shall not refuse to grant a request pursuant to section 10(1)(c) unless it has assisted, or offered to assist, the requester to amend the request so that it no longer falls to be refused under that section. It is clear in this case that no such assistance, or offer of assistance, was made. As RTE did not engage with the applicant on attempting to narrow the scope of his request at the time of his request and now considers that section 10(1)(c) of the Act applies, it is my view that RTE's decision should be annulled, and I find accordingly. The effect of this is that RTE is required to make a new, first instance, decision in respect of the applicant's original request.
Having carried out a review under section 34(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the decision of RTE in this case and direct that RTE now conduct a new decision-making process on the request, and inform the applicant of the outcome in accordance with the requirements 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 after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Sean Garvey
Senior Investigator