Case 030414. Request for all records relating to the dual mandate and Local Government Bill, 2003 - whether certain extracts and papers relating to the Government Decision must be withheld in accordance with sections 19(1)(a) and (b), or released in accordance with section 19(3)(a) - whether release would involve records relating to the deliberative process - section 20(1) - whether certain records are exempt by virtue of having been created or held by the Attorney General's Office -section 46(1)(b) - whether certain records are exempt on the grounds of legal professional privilege - 22(1)(a).

Case Summary

Facts

The requester applied for all records relating to the legislation which prohibits a member of the Dáil or Seanad Éireann from being a member of a local authority, with effect from the local elections of 2004, and thereafter.

Decision

The Department had invoked section 19 to justify withholding certain records on the basis that they had been or were proposed to be submitted to the Government by a Minister of the Government or the Attorney General and had been created for that purpose, or they were records of the Government other than a record by which a decision of the Government is published to the general public. Sections 19(1)(a) and (b) respectively are the specific sections invoked. The Commissioner decided to vary the Department's decision and to release factual information relating to the Government's decision (including the Government Decision itself) in accordance with 19(3)(a). The issue of the Commissioner's right to isolate and examine extracts of records rather than treat such records as "class exempt" was also considered As in previous cases it was again found that this type of analysis is consistent with the FOI Act.

The Department also invoked section 20 which deals with the deliberative process. However, the Commissioner decided that this exemption did not apply since the process was at an end and the public interest would on balance be better served by the release of the information rather than by refusing to grant the request.

Section 46 applies to records created by the Attorney General and is straightforward, save for the fact that some copies of the exempt records had been annotated and these additions had neither been created by, nor were they held by the Attorney General or that Office. The Commissioner therefore found that these annotations must be released. Also to be released were the copies of files created and held in the Department, even though the originals had been sent to the A.G.'s office.

In relation to section 22 the Commissioner found that two of the records constitute "legal assistance," as opposed to "legal advice," and must therefore be released.

Date of Decision: 18.03.2004

Our Reference: 030414

18.03.2004

Mr. X

Dear Mr. X

I refer to your application for a review by the Information Commissioner under the Freedom of Information Act (the FOI Act), of the decision of the Department of the Environment and Local Government ("the Department") dated 25 March, 2003, not to release to you all the records relating to the Dual Mandate and the Local Government Bill, 2003. The Department's decision was upheld on internal review on 16 April, 2003.

On 11 December, 2003, Mr. Colin Stokes of this Office issued both the Department and yourself with his preliminary assessment of the relevant issues relating to this case. You have since advised that you are not satisfied with this preliminary view as you consider that all the information should be made available to you and you have requested a binding decision on the matter. At the same time the Department also expressed its disagreement on the grounds that it considers that no additional records should be released. I will therefore now proceed to a formal review and binding decision on the matter. This review is being carried out in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Acts, 1997 and 2003. Accordingly, all references to the FOI Act, refer to the 1997 Act, as amended, unless otherwise stated.

Background

The only matter upon which I am required to decide in this case is whether or not the decision made by the Department to refuse to release all the relevant records was correct.

Scope of Review

The Department identified 43 relevant records and decided to release 22 records in full, to partially release a further 4 records and to withhold 17 records in their entirety. In arriving at my decision I have had regard to the earlier correspondence between yourself and the Department and to the general requirements and provisions of the FOI Act. In addition, I note that while both yourself and the Department were invited to do so, neither of you chose to make a submission, although both the Department and yourself did respond to Mr. Stokes' preliminary findings. However, I am also aware that you have both had discussions with Mr. Stokes in relation to the various issues.

In deciding to withhold some of the records specified, the Department has relied on three different exemptions i.e. section 19; section 20 and section 46. My review will concern itself with whether or not the Department was justified in invoking these exemptions. In addition, I have examined the appropriate records to see if the exemption provided for under section 22 might apply. For the sake of clarity I have used the numbering system employed by the Department.

Findings

Section 19 The Department has invoked section 19 in relation to all or part of the following records:-

2; 6B; 13B; 14; 15; 18; 19; 20A; 20C; 24; 26; 28.

However, in the case of records 6B; 13B; 14; 15; 20A; 20C and 26, an exemption was claimed under section 46 and I will also examine these records in that context below.

The Department had refused access to these records pursuant to the provisions of section 19(1)(a) and (b) of the FOI Act. Section 19(1)(a) provides that a head shall refuse to grant a request if the record concerned-

"has been, or is proposed to be, submitted to the Government for their consideration by a Minister of the Government or the Attorney General and was created for that purpose."

while section 19(1)(b) applies to:-

"...a record of the Government other than a record by which a decision of the Government is published to the general public by or on behalf of the Government,.."

However, that is not the end of the matter as section 19(3)(a) provides that section 19(1) does not apply to a record:-

"if and so far as it contains factual information relating to a decision of the Government that has been published to the general public".

The question before me therefore is, that since the decision to introduce amending legislation to prohibit the "Dual Mandate" was made known to the general public and has since become law with attendant publicity, should certain parts of the records containing factual information relating to that decision now be released, pursuant to the provisions of section 19(3)(a).

In the past it has been argued that it is not open to the Information Commissioner to examine a memorandum relating to Cabinet to seek to classify parts of it as factual and I would like to address this issue.

In the unpublished case of "X" (case reference no: 030714), concerning a request for records relating to the appointment of the Ombudsman/Information Commissioner, the Department of Finance referred to the High Court judgement of Ms Justice Carroll in the case of the Irish

Press v Minister for Enterprise (2002 41R 110). It argued that Carroll J. found in that case that any document such as a memorandum or report submitted to the Government on which the Government based its discussions is protected by Cabinet confidentiality. The Department of Finance's argument was that it would be inconsistent if records could be released under section 19, when the High Court would not order the release of such documents on discovery, on the ground that they are protected by Government confidentiality, and that this Office's interpretation of section 19(3)(a) could not therefore, be correct.

In that High Court case, the Court considered, inter alia, whether the Minister was required to produce, on discovery, a draft Government Decision with hand written annotations, a memo for Government and a draft and summary of that memo. Cabinet privilege was claimed in respect of the documents. Carroll J. found that the production of the draft Government Decision submitted by the Minister with notations when compared with the actual Government Decision would disclose elements of Cabinet discussion and that the memo and summary formed the basis for such discussion. She noted that the case of Murphy v Dublin Corporation (1972 IR 215) and Ambiorex limited v Minister for Environment (1992 1 IR 277) were concerned with the exercise by the judiciary of judicial power to decide:-

"whether the production of any particular document for which a privilege derived from the public interest was claimed was more likely to do greater damage to the public interest consisting of the interest of the executive by its production or to the public interest consisting of the administration of justice by its concealment...".

She found that the administration of justice would not be compromised in any way by upholding the Minister's claim to privilege on the ground of Cabinet confidentiality and that the Plaintiffs would not be unjustly disadvantaged by allowing the claim of privilege.

While the High Court judgement is concerned with the question of whether documents which disclose details of Cabinet discussions should be released on discovery, the question of whether factual information contained in such documents could or should be released did not arise on that occasion. It is however, intrinsic to the provisions of section 19 of the FOI Act. Section 19(2), which is concerned with the protection of Cabinet discussions, provides for the protection of records containing the whole or part of a statement made at a meeting of the Government or information that reveals, or from which may be inferred, the substance of the whole or part of such a statement and is not a record by which a Decision of the Government is published to the general public by or on behalf of the Government. It is noteworthy that the provisions of section 19(3)(a) do not apply to records coming within the scope of section 19(2).

Section 19(3)(a) clearly does not require the disclosure of Government deliberations. Rather, it is concerned with the release of factual information relating to Government Decisions. In my view, had the Oireachtas intended that all information contained in records coming within the scope of 19(1) should be protected, then section 19(3)(a) would not have been included in the first instance. I think it is of some significance that the exception in section 19(3)(a) applies "if and in so far as" it contains factual information. This suggests to me that it was envisaged that exempt material could be withheld from a document without also withholding factual information. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to examine records which are covered by section 19(1)(a) and (b) to determine whether they contain factual information which should be released in accordance with the provisions of section 19(3)(a).

As for the question of what constitutes "factual information", the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act, 2003 provided for the inclusion, in the 1997 Act, of a definition of this term as follows:-

"factual information includes information of a statistical, econometric or empirical nature, together with any analysis thereof".

Again, in decision number 030714, the view was taken that the use of the word "includes" in the definition means that while information of a statistical, econometric or empirical nature should be regarded as factual, regard must also be had to the ordinary meaning of the term when considering its scope. On this point, I note that the word "include" has been held to be a word of extension when used in a statutory definition in the case of Attorney General (McGrath) v Healy [1972] IR 393. In that case, Pringle J. referred to the following comments of Davitt P. in Bolger v. Doherty [1970] IR 233;

"... and the first principle in the construction of statutes is that a word should where possible be given its ordinary meaning. No doubt there are cases where the word 'includes', as used in a definition section, has been held to be equivalent to 'means and includes'; but that is not its ordinary meaning. When a definition section in a statute provides that a word shall 'include' something, it implies usually that that something would be outside the ordinary meaning of the word and that it is necessary, therefore, to include it in the meaning of the word for the purpose of the statute."

Section 2 of the FOI Act defines certain words and phrases which are contained in the Act. A number of the words or phrases in question are defined by stating that they "mean" something whereas "factual information" is defined by stating that it "includes information of a statistical, econometric or empirical nature, together with any analysis thereof" [my emphasis]. It seems to me that had it been intended that only information of a statistical, econometric or empirical nature, together with any analysis thereof, should be deemed to be factual information for the purposes of the Act, then the term could have been defined by stating that that is what it means as opposed to what it includes. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to have regard to the ordinary meaning of the term "factual information" when considering its scope.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines factual as:-

"pertaining to or concerned with facts of the nature of fact, actual, real",

while fact is defined as:-

"Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction; a datum of experience, as distinguished from the conclusions that may be based upon it".

Having regard to those definitions, I am satisfied that factual information would generally include, for example, material presented to provide a factual background to the central topic in a record. Furthermore, factual information is, in my view, distinguishable from information in the form of proposal, opinion or recommendation.

On the question of what constitutes factual matter, the Queensland Commissioner, in the case of Hudson (on behalf of Fencray Pty Limited) and Department of the Premier, Economic and Trade Development (1993) 1 Q.A.R. 123 at 134, commented that:-

".. a common-sense approach should be taken to the task of characterising matter as factual matter or otherwise, according to its substance (i.e. its substantive nature or character) rather than merely to semantics (i.e. merely by reference to the particular terms in which it is couched). Material which containselements of judgement or opinion concerning purely factual matters may still be capable, depending on its context and its purpose in that context, of properly being characterised as merely factual matter."

In determining which parts of the matter contained in a Cabinet submission comprised merely factual matter, the Queensland Commissioner went on to say that:-

"Factual matter which merely provides the factual background, or informs Cabinet of relevant facts, so as to assist its deliberations on policy issues, will generally constitute "merely factual matter".

I consider the approach taken by the Queensland Commissioner as to what constitutes factual matter or information to be a reasonable approach and it is one which I have adopted in this case.

In reaching my decision I have found it necessary to examine each of the records individually as follows:-

Record 2 comprises a memo dated 16 October, 2002 addressed to the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Policy Co-Ordinator, together with a draft memorandum for Government. Part of the memorandum deals with matters other than the dual mandate and such matters are outside the scope of this review. I further find that although section 19(1)(a) applies to these records, some of the information is of a factual nature and in accordance with section 19(3)(a) should be released as follows:-

Memo of 16 October, 2002 in full, save for the second part of the title following "Dual Mandate". Memorandum for Government: Page 1 - titles save second part following "Dual Mandate" Heading "Dual Mandate" and 3 succeeding sentences beginning "The termination" and ending "to continue" Paragraph 3 in its entirety. Paragraph 4 from sentence beginning "The Local Government Act, 1994" "to independent members in Dáil Éireann." Paragraph 5 in its entirety.

Record 6B comprises Draft Heads of the Local Government Bill. Those parts of the records dealing with matters outside the scope of the dual mandate are to be withheld as they are outside the scope of the request. I further find that section 19(1)(a) applies to the remainder of these records, and that since the information contained in these records is proposal in nature as opposed to factual, it should be withheld.

Record 13B consists of a Draft Memorandum for Government and Draft Heads of the Local Government Bill. Those parts of the records dealing with matters outside the scope of the dual mandate are to be withheld as they are outside the scope of the request. I further find that although section 19(1)(a) applies to these records, the information listed below is of a factual nature and in accordance with section 19(3)(a) should be released as follows:-

Memorandum for Government: Page 1 - titles save second part following "Dual Mandate" Heading "Dual Mandate" and 3 succeeding sentences beginning "The termination" and ending "to continue". Paragraph 3 in its entirety. Paragraph 4 from sentence beginning "The Local Government Act, 1994" to "independent members in Dáil Éireann." Paragraph 5 in its entirety.

Record 14 comprises a Memorandum for Government and Draft Heads. I find that although section 19(1)(a) applies to these records, the information listed below is of a factual nature and in accordance with section 19(3)(a) should be released as follows:-

Memorandum for Government: Page 1 - titles save second part following "Dual Mandate" Heading "Dual Mandate" and 3 succeeding sentences beginning "The termination" and ending "to continue". Paragraph 3 in its entirety. Paragraph 4 from sentence beginning "The Local Government Act, 1994" to "independent members in Dáil Éireann." Paragraph 5 in its entirety.

Record 15 consists of memoranda and covering notes with regard to the placing of a Memorandum for Government and Draft Heads on the Agenda for the next Government meeting. The memoranda are from the Private Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to the Secretary to the Government; the Private Secretary to the Attorney General (AG), the Private Secretary to the Minister for Finance, the Private Secretary to the Taoiseach and to the Private Secretary to the Tánaiste, while the covering note certifying that the matter is urgent is from T. Corcoran, an Assistant Secretary in the Department. Regardless of the issue relating to factual information, section 19(1)(c) provides:-

that a record that contains information (including advice) for a member of the Government, the Attorney General, a Minister of State, the Secretary to the Government or the Assistant Secretary to the Government for use by him primarily for the purpose of the transaction of any business of the Government at a meeting of the Government shall not be released.

I am satisfied that these memoranda fall within this category and I accordingly decide that they should not be released.

The Memorandum and Draft Heads however, are essentially the same as Record 14 above. I find that although section 19(1)(a) applies to these records, the information listed below is of a factual nature and in accordance with section 19(3)(a) should be released as follows:-

Memorandum for Government: Page 1 - titles save second part following "Dual Mandate" Heading "Dual Mandate" and 3 succeeding sentences beginning "The termination" and ending "to continue". Paragraph 3 in its entirety. Paragraph 4 from sentence beginning "The Local Government Act, 1994" to "independent members in Dáil Éireann." Paragraph 5 in its entirety.

Records 18 and 19 Record 18 is a copy of an internal minute detailing the content of a telephone call to which is attached a copy of a Government Decision. Record 19 is a copy of a Government Decision.

With the exception of the first paragraph of the internal minute of Record 18 which is outside the scope of this review and must be withheld, I find that the rest of that record is not a record of the Government as defined in section 19 and, as such, falls to be released.

Insofar as the copies of the Government Decision are concerned they constitute a record of the Government other than a record by which a Decision of the Government is published to the general public by or on behalf of the Government and accordingly I find that section 19(1)(b) applies to these records. I have, therefore, considered whether release of the records would be justified under section 19(3)(a). The contents of these records are purely factual and that factual information relates to a decision of the Government that has been published to the general public. Therefore, the Department is not entitled to refuse to release these records under section 19(1)(b). Accordingly, I find that they must be released in full with the exception of sections (ii) and (iii) which are outside the scope of this review. Record 20A is a letter dated 23 December, 2002 (containing appendices) from the Department to the Director General of the A.G.'s Office, requesting that an officer be assigned to draft the Bill. (I have also considered this record in the context of section 20; 46 and 22 below). The second paragraph is outside the scope of the request and was therefore properly withheld.

Although part of the letter gives a general indication of the contents of a Government Decision I am satisfied that section 19 does not apply as it is neither a record of the Government nor is it covered by any of the other exemptions contained in that section and as such falls to be released with exception of the second paragraph as discussed above.

A copy of Record 14 was enclosed and should be released as already indicated above.

The copy of the Government Decision which was also enclosed with the letter constitutes a record of the Government other than a record by which a Decision of the Government is published to the general public by or on behalf of the Government. As with Records 18 and 19, I have considered whether release of the records would be justified under section 19(3)(a). The content of this record is purely factual and that factual information relates to a decision of the Government that has been published to the general public. Therefore, the Department is not entitled to refuse to release this record under section 19(1)(b) Accordingly, I find that it must be released in full with the exception of sections (ii) and (iii) which are outside the scope of this review.

The hand-written note on the copy of the Government Decision is outside the scope of this review and must not be released. Record 20C is a letter dated 8 January, 2003 from the Department to the Director General of the A.G.'s Office enclosing the revised Government Decision, revised draft heads and an e-mail dated 22 January, 2003 from the Department to the AG's Office. (I have also considered this record in the context of section 20; 46 and 22 below). As in the case of Record 20A, although part of the letter gives a general indication of the contents of a Government Decision, I am satisfied that section 19 does not apply as it is neither a record of the Government nor is it covered by any of the other exemptions contained in that section and as such falls to be released.

The copy of the Government Decision which was also enclosed with the letter constitutes a record of the Government other than a record by which a Decision of the Government is published to the general public by or on behalf of the Government. As with Records 18 and 19, I have considered whether release of the record would be justified under section 19(3)(a). The content of this record is purely factual and that factual information relates to a decision of the Government that has been published to the general public. Therefore, the Department is not entitled to refuse to release these records under section 19(1)(b). Accordingly, I find that it must be released in full with the exception of sections (ii) and (iii) which are outside the scope of this review. In content, the e-mail of 22 January, 2003 is similar to the letter dated 8 January and I am satisfied that it should be released likewise.

Record 24 is a draft memorandum for Government. As already stated I find that the elements that contain factual information may be released as follows:-

Page 1: titles and date Paragraph 2 from heading "Content of Bill" to "membership from 2004". Paragraph 9 in its entirety.

Record 26 Consists of a memorandum from the Private Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to the Secretary to the Government regarding, amongst other things, a certificate of urgency in relation to the presentation of the Local Government Bill, 2003. As with record 15 above, I am satisfied that section 19(1)(c) applies and that these two associated records should not be released.

Record 28 is a copy of a Government Decision. Like Records 18 and 19 it constitutes a record of the Government other than a record by which a Decision of the Government is published to the general public by or on behalf of the Government and accordingly, I find that section 19(1)(b) applies to these records. I have therefore, considered whether release of the records would be justified under section 19(3)(a). The content of this record is purely factual and that factual information relates to a decision of the Government that has been published to the general public. Therefore, the Department is not entitled to refuse to release this record under section 19(1)(b). Accordingly, I find that it must be released in full. Section 20 The Department claimed exemption under Section 20(1) of the FOI Act (as amended) in relation to all or part of the following records:-

1A; 1B; 10; 23; 32

This exemption provides inter alia that:-

"(1) A head may refuse to grant a request under section 7 if the record concerned contains matter relating to the deliberative processes of the public body concerned (including opinions, advice, recommendations, and the results of consultations, considered by the body, the head of the body, or a member of the body or of the staff of the body, for the purposes of those processes)

I accept that the records under review contain matters that relate to the deliberative process, to wit, the sponsoring by the Department of new legislation and to that extent, these records fall to be considered under section 20 of the Act. However, the section 20 exemption does not apply where the release of the records would be in the public interest.

Also, in discussing any effect that release of the records might have, I must have regard to the provisions of section 43(3), which requires that I take all reasonable precautions not to disclose information contained in an exempt record.

As has been indicated in decisions made prior to the Amendment of the FOI Act, such as cases reference 98127 and 99279, section 20 does not require, as a matter of principle, that material should be withheld until the conclusion of a deliberative process. I am satisfied that this principle equally applies to section 20 as amended.

As I have already noted it is not necessary for a deliberative process to be completed before specific information may be released. However, in this case, the proposed legislation was enacted on 2 June, 2003 having been a high profile issue for a number of years. I consider it reasonable to hold that the deliberative process is now at an end. In any event, I do not consider that the public interest would be negatively served by releasing this information, which consists of representations and general information. On the contrary, I consider that the public interest would, on balance, be better served by the release of this information than by refusing to grant the request.

Records 20A and 20C I have already indicated the parts of these records that are outside the scope of this review. Given that my decisions are "de novo," I have considered if the Department could have argued that these records were part of the deliberative processes of the Department and sought to withhold them under section 20. In a previous decision (case reference no. 98058) my predecessor considered whether release of proposed amendments to a Bill would be exempt from release under section 20. In that decision he found that release would not be contrary to the public interest. Given that this Bill has now become law, I cannot see any possible harm occasioned by the release of this record. The public good on the other hand would be served by optimising transparency in the operation of Government.

I am therefore holding that section 20 does not apply and that the records quoted above should be released, with the exception of the addresses and phone numbers of the persons making the representations in record 1A and record 10 respectively, which should be withheld on the grounds that this information constitutes "personal information", as defined in section 2 of the FOI Act.

Section 46 The Department claimed exemption under section 46 of the FOI Act in relation to records:-

6B; 13B; 14; 15; 20A; 20B; 20C; 22A; 22B; 25; 26

Section 46 provides that:-

(1) This Act does not apply to-

(b) a record held or created by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Office of the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions (other than a record concerning the general administration of either of these Offices)

From my examination of these records, I am satisfied that records numbered 20B; 22A; 22B and 25 were held or created by the A.G. and that they do not concern the general administration of the Office of the A.G. Therefore, the Department is justified in withholding these records and I decide accordingly.

However, in the case of 22A a copy was made and annotated by an official of the Department. These annotations were not created or held by the Attorney General or by that Office. Therefore, section 46 does not apply to these annotations. Similar to records 20A and 20C I have considered if the Department could have argued that these annotations were part of the deliberative processes of the Department and sought to withhold them under section 20. Again, given that this Bill has now become law, I cannot see any possible harm occasioned by their release. The public good on the other hand would be served by optimising transparency in the operation of Government.

In relation to other records of the Department's correspondence with the A.G.'s office I am satisfied that these records were not created in the A.G.'s office nor are they held there. Rather, these are file copies of originals which were sent to the A.G. As such, they do not satisfy the conditions governing this exemption and subject to any other exemptions that may apply I decide that they should be released. In addition, although the Department did not claim exemption for any of this group of records under section 22, which covers "legal professional privilege", I considered it appropriate to examine records 20A and 20C in that context.

Section 22 Section 22 provides inter alia that:-

(1) A head shall refuse to grant a request under section 7 if the record concerned

(a) would be exempt from production in proceedings in a court on the ground of legal professional privilege,

In relation to "legal professional privilege" it is worth noting that in an earlier decision (reference number: 98011) the then Commissioner made the point that:-

There are some situations in which legal professional privilege may not attach to communications between lawyer and client such as non-confidential communications or legal assistance other than the giving of advice or communications in furtherance of a criminal offence".

This distinction was made in the Supreme Court case of Smurfit Paribas Bank Limited -v-AAB Export Finance Limited [1990] ILRM, 58 where it distinguished between correspondence relating to legal advice and correspondence relating to legal assistance as between client and solicitor. In deciding whether any particular record falls to be considered as "legal advice" and is therefore privileged, as opposed to "legal assistance" which would not be so protected, it is necessary to consider whether or not the record came into existence for the dominant purpose of giving legal advice. In previous cases including reference no. 98011 I have quoted the Smurfit Paribas case mentioned above and also the case of Silver Duckling -v- the Minister for Agriculture on this issue.

In the case of records numbered 20A and 20C, I am satisfied that they constitute legal assistance, specifically in relation to the preparation of draft Bills for the consideration of the Government. I am satisfied that the dominant purpose for which they came into existence is not by way of extracting legal advice and that there is nothing under this section to prevent the release of the information as already directed.

Decision

Having carried out a review under section 34(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, I hereby vary the decision of the Department of the Environment and Local Government dated 25 March, 2003, to the extent that the records and extracts of records detailed above should now be released.

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 that decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than eight weeks from the date of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Emily O'Reilly
Information Commissioner