Decision
Ms K and Tusla
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-143087-J3M5M1
Published on
British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Irish Information Commissioner's Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Information Commissioner's Decisions >> Ms K and Tusla [2024] IEIC 143087 (13 November 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEIC/2024/143087.html
Cite as: [2024] IEIC 143087
[New search] [Help]
Whether Tusla was justified in refusing to amend under section 9 of the FOI Act, certain information identified by the applicant in minutes Child Protection Conference Meetings and information in a Complaint Report
13 November 2024
This review has its background in certain Child Protection Conferences (CPC) which the applicant took part in relating to the care of her two young daughters. According to Tusla, a CPC will be called where a Social Worker is concerned that a child is at ongoing risk of harm, and will involve, amongst others, the parents of a child, support persons, various professionals, Tusla Social Workers and a Chairperson.
In a request dated 9 August 2023, the applicant sought to have the minutes of two CPC conferences amended under section 9 of the FOI Act on the grounds that she considered the minutes of both conferences contained -lies- and that, in her view, there had been inaccurate information provided by a number of the attendees to these conferences. She also sought amendments to a complaint investigation report dated 19th September 2022, she highlighted one area of that report which she stated was inaccurate. Overall, between three documents and 10 supporting appendices which she submitted, the applicant highlighted 63 areas of what she considered to be inaccurate or misleading records. In a decision dated 5 October 2023, Tusla decided to amend certain typographical errors in relation to the applicant-s daughter-s initials in the CPC minutes. The decision also set out that it was refusing to amend anything further within the records. It stated that a large amount of the information which the applicant was seeking to have amended was not personal information relating to her, or her daughters. In its decision it stated that the amendment of the following type of information was not deemed to be justified in the circumstances:
● Personal information about or provided by a third party
● Contemporaneous note taken at a particular time
● Factual information
● Child Protection - records created in response to child protection issues where statements were provided by third parties.
On 7 October 2023, the applicant sought an internal review of Tusla-s decision. The applicant maintains that she was defamed in the minutes by two individuals at the CPC. On 12 October 2023, Tusla issued its internal review decision affirming its original decision. On 13 October 2023, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of Tusla-s 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 submissions made by both the applicant and Tusla, to the exchanges set out above, and to the communications between this Office and both parties during the course of the review. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
Tusla has set out the amendments sought by the applicant by page number and in total these comprise 63 amendments. On page 48 of the records (CPC minutes) the applicant has added comments in alongside her own testimony, I have not considered these comments as requests for amendment as the applicant has not alleged that the information is inaccurate, incomplete or misleading nor has she advanced any argument that information was omitted from her testimony at the CPC, or that it was recorded incorrectly.
The applicant also submitted 10 appendices with her requested amendments. Upon submission of the appendices, she highlighted information within the appendices which she also alleged contained inaccuracies. Having regard to the applicant-s original request, I am satisfied that the applicant submitted the appendices as supporting documentation to support her claims for amendment of the CPC minutes and the complaint report. The original request for amendment clearly specified information in those minutes and in the complaint report, it did not reference any of the documentation which the applicant appended. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the appendices are outside the scope of the review for amendment and will only be considered as supporting evidence.
Accordingly, for the purposes of this decision I will be considering the following matters:
(i) Whether all of the amendments sought constitute personal information relating to the applicant and her children
(ii) Whether Tusla was justified in refusing the amendment of personal information related to the applicant and her two young daughters
Tusla adopted a numbering system for the requested amendments, I have adopted the same system. The amendments which I will consider are numbered as follows:
| Record | Description | Amendment requests |
| 1 | CPC Minutes - 2022 | 3, 4, 5, 6 (i - iii), 7 (i - ii), 8 (i - v), 9, 10 (i - v), 11 (i -ii), 12 (i), 13 (i - v), 14 (i), 15 (i), 17 (i - iii), |
| 2 | CPC Minutes - 2023 | 33, 34 (i - iv), 35 (i - ii), 36 (i - iv), 37(i), 41 (i - iii), 42 (i), 43 (i), 44 (i), 46 (i), 47 (i), 49, 50, 53, |
| 3 | Complaint Report - September 2022 | 1 |
| Total: | 3 records | 57 |
The vast majority of the amendments sought comprise accounts of testimony during the conference relating to the applicant-s care of her daughters which the applicant considers to be incomplete or incorrect. In light of the sensitivity of the information at issue and in an effort to protect the applicant-s privacy rights, I will aim to keep any specific or sensitive details to a minimum and will, instead, refer to them in more general terms.
At the outset, I wish to state that in the course of her correspondence with both Tusla and this Office the applicant expressed a number of concerns in relation to the credentials of a third party appointed by the Court who partook in the Conferences. The applicant also expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the manner in which the Child Protection Conferences were conducted. These are not matters which this Office can address. It is also not the role of this Office to examine complaints about the performance of FOI bodies of their functions. Our role is confined to a consideration of whether the decision taken on the application for the amendment of the records in question was in accordance with the FOI Act.
The records
The records which the applicant has argued contains information which is incomplete, incorrect or misleading comprise the following: the minutes of two Child Protection Conferences held in June 2022 and February 2023 respectively. The Conferences comprise of testimony from both the applicant and her children-s father, along with a number of third parties such as social workers, court appointed assessors, school representatives and members of An Garda Siochána. The conferences cover various aspects of the care of the applicant-s daughters, with each party making representations to a Chairperson.
The applicant has also sought one amendment to a complaint investigation report undertaken by a social worker on behalf of Tusla. The complaint investigation report examines a number of complaints made by the applicant.
Amendment of records relating to personal information
Section 9 provides a mechanism for the amendment of records held by an FOI body which contain personal information relating to the applicant. It provides for the amendment of such records where the personal information in the records is incomplete, incorrect or misleading. Section 9(6) provides for the Minister to make regulations for the making of an application under section 9 for the amendment of personal information relating to minors by a specific category of persons. The relevant regulations are the Freedom of Information Act 2014 (section 9(6), 10(6) and 37(8) Regulations 2017 (the 2017 Regulations).
The 2017 regulations provide that an application under section 9 may be made to amend a record that includes personal information which is incomplete, incorrect or misleading and shall, subject to other provisions of the FOI Act, be granted where
-the applicant is a parent or guardian of the individual to whom the information relates and the individual belongs to one of the following classes of individual:
(a) individuals who on the date of the application have not attained full age.
And the granting of the application would, having regard to all the circumstances be in the individual-s best interests.
Tusla has not disputed that the applicant has standing to seek the amendment of information contained in the records relating to her two daughters.
Is all the information at issue personal information?
For a potential right of amendment under section 9 to exist, the information concerned must be personal information within the meaning of the FOI Act. Personal information is defined in section 2 of the Act as information about an identifiable individual that either (a) would ordinarily be known only to the individual or members of the family, or friends, of the individual, or (b) is held by an FOI body on the understanding that it would be treated by that body as confidential. The definition also details fourteen specific categories of information that is personal information without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing definition.
Having examined the records at issue, I am satisfied that the applicant has sought the amendment of a large amount of information which is not personal information related to herself or her daughters. Across the records she has requested the amendment of information related to the Court appointed assessor-s credentials in addition to requesting the amendment of personal information relating to her children-s father and her other adult children.
Therefore, I am satisfied that the following requested amendments do not contain personal information related to her or her two young daughters: 3, 4, 5, 7(i), 9, 11 (ii), 12(i), 13(i), 13(v) 15 (i), 17(i) 17(ii) 17(iii) 33, 35(i), 36(ii), 36(iii), 36(iv), 37(i), 41(i), 41(iii), 43(i), 44(i), 47(i), 49. I am satisfied that this information is not amenable to amendment under section 9 and therefore I do not need to consider it further.
I accept that the remaining amendments sought do contain personal information. With regard to the remaining records at issue I will proceed to examine whether the applicant has shown that the personal information as contained in these records is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
Is the personal information incomplete, incorrect or misleading?
The following amendments remain for consideration as part of the review: 6 (i), 6(ii), 6(iii), 7 (ii), 8 (i), 8(ii), 8(iii), 8(iv), 8(v), 10 (i), 10(ii), 10(iii) 10(iv), 10(v), 11(i), 13 (i), 13(ii), 13(iii), 14 (i), 34 (i), 34(ii), 34(iii), 34(iv), 35 (ii), 36 (i), 41 (ii), 42(i), 46(i), 50, 53 and point 10 of the complaint report.
Tusla-s submissions
Tusla stated that the applicant failed to provide them with physical, factual and supporting evidence to consider the rectification request, it states that the evidence provided was a copy of the minutes of the relevant Child Protection Conference with amendments written in by the applicant and the 10 supporting appendices.
It argues that the Act is silent on where the onus of proof lies in section 9 requests, however that the Information Commissioner considers that in the absence of any express statement in the Act, the onus of proof lies on the applicant as the party asserting that the information is incorrect, incomplete or misleading. Tusla has argued that Section 9 does not provide a dispute mechanism if an individual is unhappy with what happened at a particular event or the fact that an individual was a participant at an event, it argues that the scope of the applicant-s request did not appear to take this matter into account. Furthermore, it notes that the Commissioner has noted that it would not be justified to direct an FOI body to amend its records on the sole basis of contrary statements or opinions, however strongly held, by the person seeking an amendment.
Tusla argues that an applicant-s assertions alone on that basis, will not form sufficient evidence to warrant an amendment. It argues that these matters were taken into consideration when making a decision on the request to have records amended. It is Tusla-s view that what the applicant submitted in support of her application for amendment falls, for the most part, in the category of contrary statements or opinions held by the applicant and this is reflected in Tusla-s decision to refuse the request for amendment with the exception of the amended typographical errors relating to her daughter-s initials.
The Applicant-s submissions
The applicant was contacted for her submissions on the matter and was also provided with an explanation of the role of this Office and its approach in relation to applications made under section 9. In her response to the request the applicant stated that she had two solicitor-s letters included in the appendices which she stated contained concrete evidence that Tusla-s minutes were inaccurate. The applicant also provided a number of appendices during her original request for amendment to Tusla which she said contained evidence that the minutes and the complaint report were inaccurate. The applicant maintains that the appendices provided along with the minutes contain proof that the minutes contain inaccuracies.
My Analysis
The Act is silent on the question of where the onus of proof lies in cases where an application is made for the amendment of records under section 9 of the Act. This Office considers that in the absence of any express statement in the Act, the onus of proof lies on the applicant as the party asserting that the information is incomplete, incorrect or misleading. The Act is also silent on the standard of proof which should apply in such cases. This Office takes the view that the standard of proof required in such cases is that of -balance of probabilities-. It follows, therefore, that an applicant seeking to exercise the right of amendment under section 9 must show that the information which is the subject of the application is, on the balance of probabilities, incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
In requiring an applicant to provide evidence that the information in a record is actually incomplete, incorrect or misleading, this Office is not making any prior judgement as to the accuracy of a record. The fact that an applicant fails to provide sufficient evidence to enable the Commissioner to conclude that the information is in a record, is incomplete, incorrect or misleading will cause the record to remain undisturbed, but this does not carry any judgement on the part of this Office that the record is, in fact, complete, correct and not misleading. Furthermore, this Office would not be justified in directing an FOI body to amend its records on the sole basis of contrary statements or opinions, however strongly held by the person seeking amendment. Thus an applicant-s assertions alone will not form sufficient evidence to warrant an amendment in the absence of supporting evidence.
A large amount of the applicant-s arguments on the alleged inaccuracies are centred on the Court Appointed Assessor and his credentials. As determined above, this cannot be considered for amendment as part of this review as it is not information which relates to the applicant or her two daughters. The applicant has provided a total of 10 appendices in support of her requests for amendment. Appendices 1, 2, 5 and 7 all relate to the Court Appointed Assessor-s credentials and attendance at the conferences, accordingly they are not relevant to the applicant-s request for the amendment of personal information. In relation to her own personal information and that of her children which she has sought amendment of, she has provided little evidence to support her assertions that it is incorrect, inaccurate or misleading. I will deal with each of the individual amendments below.
CPC minutes 2022
Page 6 - the applicant alleges that information provided in a section dealing with complicating factors is inaccurate and misleading.
6 (i) The applicant has sought a wording change in a paragraph related to her relationship with the father of her children. The applicant has sought to include additional information related to their relationship.
6 (ii) The applicant has sought the rewording of a sentence related to alleged behaviour of the applicant described as a complicating factor. The applicant has sought to have this reworded to reflect her -desire to protect her children."
6 (iii) The applicant has sought the removal of a line which describes her alleged behaviour. The applicant has sought this line to be removed as she states it is slanderous and without basis.
In relation to the specific amendments sought under this section by the applicant, she has provided no evidence to support her assertion that the observations made by Tusla in the report are incorrect. It seems to me that this section contains the observations of professional staff in relation to their encounters with the applicant. While I fully accept that the applicant has a differing view in relation to her encounters or experiences dealing with staff, it would not be appropriate for me to accept one party-s version of events to the detriment of another. The question I must consider is whether the evidence the applicant has submitted to support her arguments is sufficient to satisfy me that the information at issue is, on balance, incomplete, incorrect or misleading. In my view, it is not. The applicant has not referred to any supporting documentation or evidence to support her claims that the information is incorrect in any way.
Page 7/8 - this section of the report again comprises observations provided by a social worker on encounters with the applicant, her former partner and her two underage daughters.
Page 7 (ii)/ Page 8 (i/ii) The Social Worker describes his interactions with the daughters and his concerns over certain phone-calls the children may have been exposed to. The applicant has sought the amendment of any reference to her children being exposed to certain phone-calls and disputes that this was ever the case.
Page 8 (iii) the applicant has sought the amendment of a sentence which describes alleged behaviour on her part which the applicant alleges is a lie.
Page 8 (iv) the applicant has sought the amendment of a sentence in which it is claimed that the applicant has discussed issues relating to her older daughter with her two younger daughters. The applicant states that this untrue.
Page 8 (v) The social worker discusses the alleged emotional state of the children. The applicant has submitted a comment for inclusion.
On the matter of the applicant-s daughters having been or not been exposed to certain phone conversations, I note that the social worker states that it is his -belief- that this is the case. Other than the applicant stating that her daughters have not been exposed to these calls, she has not advanced any specific arguments in relation to this or provided any evidence to the contrary. I also consider this to be applicable to her dispute with the social worker-s observation on the applicant-s alleged behaviour. The applicant has not advanced specific information or evidence which would show that the social worker-s commentary is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
It would not be appropriate for this Office to direct the amendment of records on the basis of contrary statements or opinions. Where an applicant claims an opinion to be incomplete, incorrect or misleading, we would expect the applicant to show that the opinion is somehow flawed by reason of the total inadequacy of the factual information underlying it, or because of the existence of bias or ill will, or incompetence, lack of balance or necessary experience in the person forming the opinion, or because of some other particular factor which renders the opinion dangerous to rely upon. The fact that the applicant disagrees with the statements is not, of itself, sufficient for me to find that a right of amendment exists. As such, I am not persuaded that the applicant has shown, on balance, that the statements are incomplete, incorrect, or misleading.
Page 10 - this section comprises information given by the court appointed assessor.
(i) The applicant has sought the amendment of a sentence in which the assessor discusses a proposal concerning working with a therapist and the applicant-s reaction to this. The applicant alleges that this is a lie and references appendices 3 and 4 as evidence.
(ii) The applicant has sought the amendment of a sentence in which the assessor gives a view on the appropriate amount of contact between the applicant and her children. The applicant alleges this is untrue and that this has already been agreed but was ignored and lied about by the assessor.
(iii) the applicant has sought the amendment of a sentence in which the assessor makes an observation on certain difficulties around contact between the applicant and her children and the applicant-s behaviour in relation to this. The applicant has refuted his comments and has referenced a letter from June 2022, in support of her position.
(iv) the assessor made further observations around the applicant and her former partner and the applicants engagement with certain services. The applicant has argued that she is not refusing to engage and has referenced the same letter from June 2022, in support of this assertion.
(v) The assessor gave a view on the first form of contact between the applicant and her children. The applicant has argued that the assessor is lying around the issue of contact between the applicant and her children and references a court order in support of her assertion. She further highlighted appendices 3 and 4 in support of her position.
In considering the applicant-s amendment requests in this section, I have had regard to Appendices 3 and 4, which the applicant has provided as supporting evidence. For clarity, Appendix 3 comprises a letter from the applicant-s solicitor dated 2022. The applicant has highlighted a portion of that letter from her solicitors which states -Our client has no issue with family therapy and would welcome same.- The letter goes on to state that the applicant is not prepared to attend a named therapist, but that she will seek recommendations and furnish them to her former partner. The letter further outlines the applicant-s expectations in relation to contact with her children in accordance with a court order. Appendix 4 comprises receipts from the named therapist which the applicant had previously attended in 2020.
The court appointed assessor states in the minutes that the question around contact between the applicant and her children had to wait -to see the engagement with a therapist of choice by the court and the social work department.- Based on the information provided by the applicant it does not appear to be in dispute that she attended a therapist, however it does not show that the assessor-s observations about the applicant-s willingness or not, to engage with a family therapist appointed by the Court, is incorrect, incomplete or misleading.
In relation to the court order referred to by the applicant, beyond an assertion by her solicitor in the letter in question, I have not had sight of the relevant court order to determine whether or not the timeframe given by the assessor is correct. Moreover, the assessor does not refer to a court order but rather appears to give a view on appropriateness of the length of the first call in question.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant has not shown on the balance of probabilities, that the information in this section is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
Page 11 - this section comprises of information given by the school principal.
Page 11 (i) the principal states that he received an email from the applicant which made allegations around school procedures not being observed. The applicant has added a comment around the school-s engagement with her.
The applicant does not appear to dispute the observation here but rather has added a contextual comment on her relationship with the school. The applicant has not provided any evidence or advanced any specific arguments to support this assertion, nor does it seem to me to show that the information is inaccurate in anyway. As such, I am satisfied that the applicant has not shown on the balance of probabilities, that the information in this section is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
Page 13/14 - this section comprises of information given by members of An Garda Síochana, the children-s father and a judge.
Page 13 (i) the applicant has sought the amendment of a sentence relating to her interactions with welfare checks. The applicant has alleged that comments around her interactions affecting welfare checks are untrue.
Page 13 (ii) the applicant disputes a comment by the children-s father in relation to his access to his two young daughters. The applicant disputes his comments and says they saw him every week.
Page 13 (iii) The applicant disputes a comment relating to a direction which she was allegedly given from the Court. She alleges that this is untrue.
Page 14 (i) The applicant disputes a comment made about her children seeing notes she has written.
As indicated above, an applicant-s assertions alone will not form sufficient evidence to warrant an amendment, in the absence of supporting evidence. The applicant has not adduced any evidence to support these contentions. From my review of the report and the supporting evidence provided by the applicant, there is nothing which would support her contention that this information, or the opinions given throughout these conferences are inaccurate in any way. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant has not shown on the balance of probabilities, that the information contained in this section is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
CPC minutes 2023
Page 34 - This section details matters of concern noted by Tusla. It is titled -What are we worried about (Past Harm/Future Danger and Complicating Factors)?-
Page 34 (i) The applicant disputes a concern raised by the social work team around the children-s perception of professionals. The applicant states that this is untrue.
Page 34 (ii) the applicant has sought amendment of a comment recorded as a complicating factor in the report around a court order. The applicant argues that this is only a temporary order.
Page 34 (iii) The applicant has sought amendment of another complicating factor in the report on her daughter securing a secondary school placement. The applicant argues that the placement has been secured since she was a toddler.
Page 34 (iv) The applicant has sought amendment of a comment related to existing safety measures for the children. The applicant alleges the comments are untrue.
The applicant appears to be adding certain contextual comments to information in the section, and while she has disputed one or two things as untrue, she has not provided evidence to support these assertions. In relation to the contextual comments, it is worth noting, that personal information in a record is not incomplete merely because the record does not contain all the information which the applicant might like it to contain. This Office takes the view that the word incomplete in section 9 is used in the sense of imperfect or defective or lacking certain requisite items or details. In deciding whether the information can be so described, regard has to be had to the purpose for which the information is held. It can be said to be incomplete if it lacks certain requisite details i.e. details required by the circumstances in which the record is created or required for the uses to which the record is put or which might put a different complexion on the information. No such requisite details are lacking in this case, in my view. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the applicant has not shown on the balance of probabilities, that the information contained in this section is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
Page 35/36/41 - This section reflects information given by a social worker during the course of the conference
Page 35 (ii) The applicant has sought amendment of a comment made by a social worker in relation to her phone interactions with her daughters. The applicant has stated that this comment is a lie.
Page 36 (i) The applicant has sought amendment of a social worker-s comment in relation to the applicant-s daughter writing letters. The applicant alleges that this is not the case.
Page 41 (ii) The applicant has sought amendment of a statement given by a social worker concerning the applicant-s access to her daughters. The applicant alleges that the Court Appointed Assessor lied on this point.
Nothing in the supporting documentation provided by the applicant seems to support any of her contentions above. Having considered the record and the evidence provided, I do not consider that the applicant has demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that the disputed record is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
Page 42 (i) The applicant has sought the amendment of a comment made by the children-s father. The comment relates to the applicant-s engagement with family therapy. The applicant has alleged that this is a lie and that she has proof in the form of a solicitor-s letter.
I have dealt with this matter already in relation to the amendments sought on page 10, the applicant appears to be referring to the same solicitor-s letter as proof that she did not object to family therapy. In keeping with my findings on the amendments sought on page 10, I am not satisfied that the applicant has shown on the balance of probabilities that the information in question is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
Page 46 (i) The applicant has sought the amendment of a comment made by a member of an Garda Siochána, in which they state that handwriting on a note does not appear to be the applicant-s daughters. The applicant maintains that this is not true.
The applicant provided notes which she states contain her daughter-s handwriting in the Appendices provided. I note that the statement from the Garda in question states that the notes do not -appear to be- from the applicant-s daughter. I cannot determine one way or another whether the statement in question is inaccurate, incorrect or misleading on the basis of the evidence provided, I am not in a position to verify the handwriting one way or another. As I have outlined above, this Office would not be justified in directing an FOI body to amend its records on the sole basis of contrary statements or opinions, however strongly held, by the person seeking the amendment, nor would an applicant-s assertions along form sufficient evidence to warrant an amending, in the absence of supporting evidence. In my view, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would support a finding that this information is on the balance of probabilities, incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
Page 50 (i) The applicant has sought the amendment of a comment made by a social worker concerning certain allegations made in notes by her daughters. The applicant alleges that this is untrue and points to Appendix 10 as evidence, and states that the social worker admitted that allegations were made in writing.
The applicant has pointed to the notes at Appendix 10 in support of her request for the amendment of the record in question. In the evidence provided by the applicant, information has been redacted from the handwritten note, but in the corners, in different handwriting, an allegation has been written in with an arrow pointing to the redacted information. While the social worker has agreed that the children made these allegations in the note she has also acknowledged that they said in conversation to her, that this was not the case. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the applicant has not shown on the balance of probabilities that the information in question is incorrect, incomplete or misleading.
Page 53 (i) the applicant has sought the amendment of a comment from the children-s father concerning family therapy. The applicant disputes the comment.
While the applicant disputes the father-s comment as dealt with above, the applicant-s assertions alone will not form sufficient evidence to warrant an amendment, in the absence of supporting evidence. The applicant has not provided any evidence which would support a finding that this information is on the balance of probabilities, incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
Complaint Report
Point 10 on page 7 - The applicant sought amendment of information provided by the Gardaí in the report, she has stated that the information in question is inaccurate.
The applicant has provided no documentation or evidence to support of her contention that the information is inaccurate. In its original decision, Tusla stated that the social worker checked the information against the NCCIS report for incorrect information and that it was deemed to be accurate. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support her contention. Having considered the submissions made, I do not consider that the applicant has demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that the disputed record is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.
In sum, having carefully considered the applicant-s arguments and supporting documentation, I find that she had not provided sufficient evidence in support of the overall application for amendment of the CPC minutes and the complaint report. I find that the applicant has not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the information contained in the records at issue is incomplete, incorrect or misleading. Accordingly, I find that Tusla was justified in refusing to amend the records in question.
Finally, for the benefit of the applicant, I would note that under section 9(4)(a) of the FOI Act, where an FOI body refuses an application for the amendment of a record, it must attach to the record concerned the application or a copy of it or, if that is not practicable, a notation indicating that the application has been made. This in itself is quite significant as it alerts all future users of the record that aspects of its contents are disputed by the applicant.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm Tusla-s decision. I find that it was justified in refusing the requests for amendment of both the CPC minutes, and the Investigation report.
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.
Rachael Lord
Investigator