Decision
Mr D and Irish Prison Service
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-145535-K6R9Q4
Published on
British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
Irish Information Commissioner's Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Information Commissioner's Decisions >> Mr D and Irish Prison Service [2024] IEIC 145535 (13 May 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEIC/2024/145535.html
Cite as: [2024] IEIC 145535
[New search] [Help]
Whether the IPS was justified in refusing, under sections 15(1)(c) and 37(1) of the FOI Act, the applicant's request for a breakdown of the offences committed by prisoners who were to be released over the 2023 Christmas period and the time left for each prisoner in their prison sentence
13 May 2024
In a request to the Irish Prison Service ('IPS') dated 20 December 2023, the applicant sought a breakdown of the offences the 139 prisoners who were to be released over the Christmas period had committed and a breakdown of the time left for each prisoner in their prison sentence.
On 21 December 2023, the IPS issued a decision, in which it refused the applicant's request for a breakdown of the offences the prisoners committed under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act. Section 15(1)(c) provides for a refusal on administrative grounds of a request for records where granting the request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of work of the FOI body. The IPS stated that the records are not held in an easily accessible format and the time taken to provide such records would be disruptive to the work of the IPS. It also refused the applicant's request for a breakdown of the time left for the prisoners to serve under section 37(1) of the FOI Act on the basis that it would involve the disclosure of personal information relating to third parties.
On 23 December 2023, the applicant sought an internal review of the IPS' decision on his request. On 19 January 2024, the applicant informed this Office that he had not received a response to his request for internal review and he sought a review of the decision of the IPS to refuse his request. On 22 January 2024, the IPS issued its internal review decision, in which it affirmed the decision to refuse the applicant's request under sections 15(1)(c) and section 37(1).
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 IPS during the course of this review. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the IPS was justified in its decision to refuse the applicant's request for information concerning prisoners who were to be released over the 2023 Christmas period under sections 15(1)(c)and 37(1) of the FOI Act .
Section 15(1)(c) provides that an FOI body may refuse to grant 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 FOI body or a particular functional area of the body.
However, section 15(4) provides that a request cannot be refused under section 15(1)(c) unless the FOI body has assisted, or offered to assist, an applicant in amending a request so that it no longer falls within section 15(1)(c). As such, before I can consider whether IPS was justified in refusing the request under section 15(1)(c), I must first consider whether it complied with the provisions of section 15(4) before doing so.
The FOI Act is silent on the precise nature or level of the assistance to be offered under section 15(4). This Office takes the view that before a body can refuse a request under section 15(1)(c), the FOI body must first have provided reasonable assistance to an applicant in amending the request, or have offered to provide assistance in cases where the applicant is not willing to amend the original request, in order to comply with the requirements of section 15(4). On the question of what constitutes reasonable assistance, this Office considers that the level or nature of the assistance to be provided can vary significantly case by case. It will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of a particular case. It will often also depend on the willingness of the parties to engage in meaningful discussion on what might be acceptable in such circumstances.
In its submissions, the IPS said prisoner records are held electronically on its Prisoner Information Management System (PIMS) database. It said each of the 139 prisoner files would have to searched manually in order to access the records requested. It said some of the prisoners may have committed more than one offence and the record for each of these offences would have to be accessed and recorded. It said it did not offer assistance to the applicant to amend the request in this instance. It said there are no existing reports that could generate the information requested, even in a modified form, and that manual retrieval of the records was not feasible.
I fully accept that there will be occasions where it is very difficult for an FOI body to suggest amendments to a request so that it no longer falls to be refused under section 15(1)(c). Moreover, while it is not a matter for this Office to advise requesters how to frame requests, I must admit that in this case, it is not immediately apparent to me how the request might have been amended in order to avoid a refusal under section 15(1)(c). Nevertheless, compliance with section 15(4) is mandatory and the offer of assistance must be made before a request can be refused under section 15(1)(c). As the IPS has confirmed in its submissions that it did not offer assistance to the applicant to amend his request in this case, I find that I have no alternative but to annul the decision of the IPS to refuse the request under section 15(1)(c) on the ground that it did not first comply with the provisions of section 15(4), and to remit the request back to the IPS for consideration afresh.
For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to make it clear that I have made no finding on the entitlement of the IPS to rely on section 15(1)(c) to refuse the request as it currently stands. However, if the request is not amended and the IPS wishes to rely on section 15(1)(c) again, it must first comply with the requirements of section 15(4) before doing so.
Given my finding that the refusal of the request under section 15(1)(c) should be annulled, I do not deem it appropriate to consider whether it was justified in relying on section 37(1) to refuse the request given that any such decision would be wholly dependent upon the information that would fall within the scope of the request.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the decision of the IPS to refuse the applicant's request under section 15(1)(c) on the basis that it did not first comply with the provisions of section 15(4) of the FOI Act. I direct the IPS to conduct a fresh decision-making process on the applicant's request.
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