Decision
Ms X and Data Protection Commissioner
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-148534-B8S7P2
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 X and Data Protection Commissioner [2024] IEIC 148534 (30 July 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEIC/2024/148534.html
Cite as: [2024] IEIC 148534
[New search] [Help]
Whether the DPC was justified in refusing access to records relating to a complaint the applicant made to it on the basis that the FOI Act does not apply to the records sought, pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(f) of the Act
30 July 2024
On 22 March 2024, the applicant sought a copy of the DPC's file relating to its investigation of a complaint she had made to it about unauthorised use of her PPS Number. On 25 March 2024, the DPC issued its original decision, in which it refused the applicant's request pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(f) of the FOI Act. The DPC stated that it is a partially included agency under the FOI Act, and as such all records held by the Commission are excluded save as regards a record concerning the general administration of the Data Protection Commission. On 13 April 2024, the applicant requested an internal review of the DPC's decision, saying the DPC is a public body and that she is entitled to the information it or any other public body it liaised with hold in relation to her.
On 25 April 2024, the DPC affirmed its original decision on the basis that the records sought by the applicant are not subject to the FOI Act as they do not relate to the general administration of the Office. The DPC said the records sought concern a core function of the Data Protection Commission, i.e. complaint handling pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018. On the same day, 25 April 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the DPC'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 correspondence referred to above and to submissions made to this Office by both parties. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the DPC was justified in refusing the applicant's request for records relating to its investigation of her complaint, on the basis that the FOI Act does not apply to the records sought, pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(f) of the Act.
Firstly, it is important to note that section 13(4) of the 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.
Secondly, it is also important to note that this Office has no remit to investigate complaints, to adjudicate on how FOI bodies perform their functions generally, or to act as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with respect to actions taken by FOI bodies.
For the benefit of the applicant, I should explain at the outset that the FOI Act applies only to a very limited category of records held by the DPC. Regardless of the applicant's views as to whether there may be compelling grounds for the release of certain records, if the FOI Act does not apply to the records sought, then no right of access exists and this Office has no further role in the matter. The position of the DPC is that the information requested by the applicant in this case falls outside the scope of the FOI Act.
Schedule 1, Part 1(f) of the FOI Act
Section 6(2) of the FOI Act provides that any organisation specified in Schedule 1, Part 1 of the FOI Act shall, subject to the provisions of that Part, be a public body for the purpose of the Act. Schedule 1, Part 1 contains details of bodies that are partially included for the purposes of the Act and also details certain specified records that are excluded. If records sought come within the description of the exclusions on Part 1, the FOI Act does not apply and no right of access exists to such records held by the body.
Schedule 1, Part 1(f) provides that the DPC is not a public body for the purposes of the FOI Act other than in relation to records relating to the general administration of the DPC. In other words, the only records held by the DPC that are subject to the FOI Act are those that relate to the general administration of the DPC. In accordance with Part 1(f), all other records held by the DPC are excluded, including records relating to the core functions of the DPC.
The FOI Act does not define the term "general administration" as provided for in Part 1(f). This Office considers the term to cover records relating to the administration of the body, as opposed to say, records relating to its operational matters or core functions. In the case of a number of specified public bodies, the right of access afforded by the FOI Act is restricted to records relating to their general administration. We consider the term general administration to refer to records which have to do with the management of a public body such as records relating to personnel, pay matters, recruitment, accounts, information technology, accommodation, internal organisation, office procedures etc.
In its submissions to this Office, the DPC said that when reviewing the applicants original and internal review requests it considered the Information Commissioner's interpretation of what constituted records relating to "general administration", as outlined above. The DPC said it did not consider records concerning the DPC's investigation of complaints to fall within the categories of records identified as "general administration." The DPC said that records relating to how the DPC investigates complaints relate to the DPC's core investigative role and do not form part of the general administration of the Office. Consequently, the DPC said the records the applicant requested relating to a specific investigation file are not considered "general administration" records, and therefore fall outside the scope of the FOI Act.
In submissions to this Office the DPC also addressed the applicant's contention in her internal review request that the DPC are a public body, and therefore she is entitled to any records it holds. The DPC said it is not a public body for the purposes of the FOI Act and the records the Office holds are not within the scope of the FOI Act, save in relation to a limited category of records relating to its "general administration." The DPC reiterated its position that any records relating to its investigation of complaints does not fall within the remit of the FOI Act, and consequently the records sought by the applicant should not be released.
Having regard to the nature of the request and the description of the records sought, I am satisfied that the records at issue in this case concern the core function of the DPC, as opposed to the general administration of the Office. Accordingly, I find that the DPC was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought on the ground that they are specifically excluded from the scope of the FOI Act, pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(f) of the Act.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the DPC's decision to refuse the applicant's request pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(f) of the FOI Act on the basis that the FOI Act does not apply to the records sought.
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