Cinneadh
Ms X and Department of Justice
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-152996-M3J5W9
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-152996-M3J5W9
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
20 December 2024
In a request dated 19 September 2024, the applicant sought access to all information about her held by the Immigration Department and the Department of Justice since 2018, including all documents she submitted in the applications she made. On 16 October 2024, the Department informed the applicant that it was extending the time-frame for issuing a decision by four weeks pursuant to section 14 of the FOI Act and that it would make every effort to issue a decision by 18 November 2024.
On 18 October 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Department’s decision to apply a time extension. She said she required the requested records urgently and she said she believed that her request should be able to be processed by the Department within the standard four-week time-frame.
The Department issued its decision on the applicant’s request 25 October 2024. As such, my decision in this case can have no tangible impact on the processing of the applicant’s request. Nevertheless, as the applicant did not respond to the Investigating Officer’s invitation to withdraw the application for review, I have decided to conclude the review by way of a formal, binding decision. 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 applicant’s comments in her application for review and the submissions made by the Department.
This review is concerned solely with whether the Department’s decision to extend the time frame for considering the applicant’s request was in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the FOI Act.
Section 14(1) of the FOI Act provides allows and FOI body to extend the four-week period specified in section 13(1) for consideration of a request by up to four additional weeks if it considers that;
a) the request relates to such number of records, or
b) the number of other FOI requests relating either to the record or records to which the specified request relates or to information corresponding to that to which the specified request relates or to both that have been made to the FOI body concerned before the specified request was made to it and in relation to which a decision under section 13 has not been made is such,
that compliance with the four-week period specified in section 13(1) is not reasonably possible.
In its letter of 16 October 2024 to the applicant, the Department did not indicate whether it was relying on section 14(1)(a) or 14(1)(b) for extending the period, nor did it provide the applicant with reasons for applying the extension. Its failure to do so was in contravention of the requirement in section 14(2) of the Act to provide a requester with reasons for the time extension. I expect the Department to take note of this and to ensure that all future applications of time extensions are carried out in accordance with the requirements of the section.
In its submissions to this Office, the Department said it applied the time extension in accordance with section 14(1)(a) of the Act in this case. It said the records sought are held in three immigration files and that the total number of pages across the three files is 588. It said that all of these pages needed to be examined and scanned and that at the time of the request, no electronic version of the files existed. It said that the processing of FOI requests relating to EU Treaty Rights immigration files is the responsibility of two staff members and that those staff members are also responsible for all Subject Access Requests (SARS) made under the Data Protection Act 2018 which relate to EU Treaty Rights immigration files. It said one is a senior staff member who acts as the deciding officer regarding the FOI request, and the other is a Clerical Officer who is responsible for:
• Acquiring the records from wherever they are being stored
• Removing the records from the file covers and separating them out into individual records
• Numbering the pages of each record
• Scanning each of the pages
• Preparing the schedule for the records.
The Department said that between 25 September 2024 and 16 October 2024 when then time extension was applied, the two staff members were already working on another FOI request and four SARS. It said that collectively, those applications related to twelve separate immigration files with a combined total of 2,200 pages. It said that due to the volume of work at hand, it was not realistic for the unit to expect that a decision on the applicant’s request would be ready to issue by the deadline of 18 October 2024. It said that it therefore applied an extension under section 14(1)(a) to 18 November 2024.
I note that the processing of the applicant’s request in this case required a consideration of almost 600 pages. This is not an inconsiderable number of records. However, having considered the Department’s submissions, it seems to me that its primary reason for extending the time-frame for issuing a decision in this case was based not solely on the number of records involved but rather on the volume of other work that the relevant staff members were dealing with. The circumstances under which an extension can be applied are limited to the circumstances set out in section 14(1)(a) and (b). The volume of other work an FOI body has on hand does not provide a basis for extending the time-frame under section 14(1). While I acknowledge the challenge of balancing competing priorities, the provisions of section 14 are very specific and do not allow for the extension of the period for consideration of a request because of other work priorities. The Department presented no arguments as to how the processing of a request involving almost 600 records would, of itself, justify an extension on the ground that compliance with the four-week period specified in section 13(1) would not have been reasonably possible. Accordingly, while my findings in this case can have no tangible benefit for the applicant given that the Department has already issued its substantive decision on her request, I find that the Department was not justified in its decision to extend the period for considering the applicant’s request under section 14(1)(a).
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the Department’s decision to extend the period for consideration of the applicant’s request under section 14(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
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.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator