Cinneadh
Mr X and Courts Service
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-149991-W3R3N2
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-149991-W3R3N2
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the Courts Service was justified in refusing access to records relating to court proceedings involving the applicant under section 42(a)(i) of the FOI Act on the ground that the Act does not apply to the records sought
1 November 2024
In a request dated 25 April 2024, the applicant requested access to all documents, including but not limited to trial transcripts and CCTV records relating to four specified court cases concerning him.
On 26 April 2024, the Courts Service refused the applicant’s request under section 42(a)(i) of the FOI Act on the basis that the FOI Act does not apply to records held by the courts relating to court proceedings. The Court Service said court records are under the control of the Courts and not the Courts Service, in accordance with section 65 of the Court Officers Act, 1926 which states that“all proofs and all other documents and papers lodged in or handed in to any court in relation to or in the course of the hearing of any suit or matter shall be held by or at the order and disposal of the judge or the senior of the judges by or before whom such suit is heard.” The Court Service advised the applicant he may seek access to court records outside the FOI process by contacting the relevant court offices. It also informed the applicant special procedures are in place for any party who wishes to apply for access to a Digital Audio Recording of court proceedings (also known as the “DAR” recording). It said that any request for access to a recording of court proceedings must be made by formal application to the trial judge via the relevant court offices.
On 22 May 2024, the applicant requested an internal review of the Courts Service’s decision. On 20 June 2024, the Courts Service affirmed its original decision. In relation to the applicant’s request for CCTV records, the Court Service said that CCTV footage is retained for 35 days and subsequently deleted in accordance with the Courts Service CCTV policy and applicable data protection laws. It noted that it is not clear from the applicant’s request what CCTV footage he is seeking. It invited the applicant to make a fresh application for CCTV footage no older than 35 days. On 20 June 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Courts Service’s decision.
On 9 October 2024, the Investigating Officer emailed the applicant with details of the submissions we received from the Courts Service outlining the reasons for its decision. The applicant was invited to make further submissions if he wished. No reply has been received to date.
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 the Courts Service. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
The scope of this review is concerned solely with whether the Courts Service was justified in refusing, under section 42(a)(i) of the FOI Act, access to the court records sought by the applicant.
Before I address the substantive matters arising, I wish to make a number of preliminary comments. Firstly, the applicant made a number of submissions to this Office during the course of this review outlining why he needed access to the court records at issue. It is important to note section 13(4) of the FOI Act provides that, subject to the Act, in deciding whether to grant or refuse an FOI request, any reason that the requester gives for the request and any belief or opinion of the FOI body as to the reasons for the request shall be disregarded. Thus, while certain provisions of the Act implicitly render the motive of the requester relevant, as a general rule, the actual or perceived reasons for a request must be disregarded in deciding whether to grant or refuse an access request under the FOI Act. Furthermore, this Office has no role in the investigation of complaints regarding the manner in which FOI bodies perform their functions generally, or to act as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with respect to actions taken by FOI bodies.
Secondly, the applicant did not contest the Courts Service’s position that CCTV footage is only retained for 35 days, and that no CCTV recording takes place inside any courtroom. As noted above, the Courts Service said the applicant did not provide details of the time period covering the CCTV footage that he sought. As suggested by the Court Service, it is open to the applicant to make a fresh request for CCTV footage, should he wish.
Finally, in his submissions to this Office, the applicant said that he did not receive a copy of the Courts Service internal review decision. Having been informed of this, the Courts Service reissued a copy of its internal review decision to the applicant via post and email.
Section 42(a)(i) of the FOI Act provides that, subject to two exceptions, the Act does not apply to records held by the courts or to proceedings in a court. The first exception concerns records relating to proceedings in a court held in public, where the records were not created by the court and whose disclosure to the general public is not prohibited by the court. The second exception concerns records relating to the general administration of the courts or the offices of the courts. While the Act is silent on the meaning of general administration, this Office considers that it refers to records which have to do with management of the courts or the offices of the courts, such as records relating to personnel, pay matters, recruitment, accounts, information technology, accommodation, internal organisation, office procedures and the like. As the records sought in this case concern proceedings in the court cases at issue, I am satisfied that the second exception above concerning records of general administration does not apply in this case.
The applicant’s request for records relates to both criminal and family law cases he was involved in. In its submissions to this Office, the Courts Service stated that while matters before the criminal courts are held in public, access to such records is restricted to the extent that the restrictions are necessary and proportionate to safeguard judicial independence and court proceedings. Family law matters, on the other hand, are heard ‘in camera’ with the exclusion of members of the public and the affairs of all family law cases are confidential. Access rights to records of the Courts is governed by rules of court and practice directions, and it is ultimately a matter for the presiding judge to dispense with restrictions of access. The Courts Service said that the information sought by the applicant is held on records under the control of the courts and they are not administrative in nature and relate directly to court proceedings.
The Courts Service said that the applicant was advised on how to seek access to court records outside the FOI process by contacting the relevant court offices, details of which were provided to the applicant in the Court Service’s original decision and again by this Office’s Investigating Officer during the course of this review. The Courts Service said the presiding Judge in court proceedings has control over the records of the court and ultimately has responsibility to decide on access to these records. The Courts Service said that a data subject seeking access to any part of a note or recording made of proceedings must make a formal application to the court concerned, subject to and in accordance the relevant Rules of court. In her letter to the applicant dated 9 October 2024 the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with hyperlinks to the procedures governing access to recordings of proceedings in court.
In his submissions to this Office, the applicant said that he had contacted the court offices before seeking records related to the referenced court cases. The Investigating Officer put this to the Court Service. In response, it said it contacted the District Criminal Court, the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the Central Criminal Court and each said that they had not received correspondence from the applicant requesting access to records outside the FOI process. The Courts Service said that its offices in Dolphin House received an email forwarded from Circuit Family Law on 31 May 2024 in which the applicant requested all court records and transcripts for his family law case. Dolphin House informed the Courts Service that his request may have been interpreted as him requesting records for a case he was not involved in. Based on this, the Courts Service recommended that the applicant contact the Manager of Dolphin House Family Law Office to clarify his request outside of FOI. This recommendation from the Courts Service was passed on to the applicant by the Investigating Officer.
Having considered the submissions in this case and the nature of the records sought by the applicant, I am satisfied that the Courts Service was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought under section 42(a)(i) of the FOI Act on the ground that the FOI Act does not apply to the court records sought by the applicant in this case. I find accordingly.
Finally, I note the applicant has argued that release of the requested records is in the public interest. It is important to note that there is no public interest provision in section 42 of the FOI Act. The effect of section 42(a)(i) applying to a record is that the Act does not apply to the record and as such, no right of access exists under the FOI Act.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Courts Service’s decision to refuse access to the records sought relating court proceedings under section 42(a)(i) of the FOI Act on the ground that the Act does not apply to those records.
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