Decision
Mr W and Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-151236-N0D5Z8
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 >> Mr W and Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth [2024] IEIC 151236 (10 December 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEIC/2024/151236.html
Cite as: [2024] IEIC 151236
[New search] [Help]
Whether the Department was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to further records relating to a podcast meeting between Family Carers Ireland and the Minister on the basis that no further records exist or can be found
10 December 2024
In a request dated 5 April 2024, the applicant sought access to details and minutes of all meetings and emails between Family Carers Ireland (FCI) and the Department from December 2023 to the date of his request. The Department did not issue a decision to the applicant within the 4 week timeframe prescribed in the FOI Act. On 14 June 2024, the applicant requested an internal review of the Department's deemed refusal of his request. As the Department again failed to issue its internal review decision within the prescribed time, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the matter. On 29 July 2024, following contact from this Office, the Department issued a decision releasing one record to the applicant. It redacted some personal information from the record it released to the applicant under section 37(1) of the FOI Act.
On 14 August 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Department's decision. The applicant said that the record he received from the Department showed a podcast meeting was arranged between the Minister and FCI to take place on 11 January 2024. He said he is seeking access to a recording of the podcast or detailed minutes of its content. The applicant did not appeal the Department's decision to redact personal information from the record it released to him.
During the course of this review details of the Department's submissions were provided to the applicant and he was invited to make submissions in the matter, which he has not done to date.
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, including the submissions made by the Department in support of its decision. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is solely concerned with whether the Department was justified in refusing access to further records related to the podcast meeting between the Minister and FCI under section 15(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that no further records exist or can be found.
Section 15(1)(a)
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to locate them have been taken. The role of this Office in such cases is to review the decision of the FOI body and decide whether that decision was justified. This means that we must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at their decision and must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. The evidence in "search" cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous and other information about the record management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
In its submissions to this Office, the Department provided details of the steps it took to locate the records requested by the applicant, details of which were provided to the applicant. While I do not intend to repeat these details in full here, I can confirm that I have had regard to them.
In its submissions, the Department said that the meeting for the podcast did take place and a link to view the podcast on a file-sharing platform was sent to the Minister and his advisers by FCI. The Department said the link to view the podcast has since expired. It said it does not hold any copy of the recording and said it was never in possession of a copy.
The Department added that, while establishing whether it ever held a copy of the podcast recording, an additional record was located. The record was an email chain between the Department and FCI wherein the link to access the podcast recording was provided. Following this discovery, the Department said a second search of records held by the Minister's office was undertaken and no further records were located. The Department released a copy of this email chain to the applicant, with a small amount of personal information redacted.
With respect to the link to view the podcast recording, the Department said the link was never accessed by the Minister or any of the advisors copied on the relevant email thread. The Department said that the record linked to is not accessible for two reasons:
1) The file-sharing platform links are designed to expire after a short length of time.
2) The file-sharing links could not be accessed by Department staff as the file-sharing platform is blocked by the Department's servers for cyber security reasons.
The Department said the Minister's mailboxes were searched personally by his Private Secretary, who also conducted an electronic search of the Private Office documents folders. The Private Secretary said that the Minister did not respond to the relevant email thread containing the link to the podcast. The Private Secretary went on to say that she followed up with the staff members copied on the email and they had not interacted with this email and held no additional records. The Department said no review of the podcast recording took place and no feedback or instruction was given to FCI in response. The Department said it has no information regarding if/when the recording was published and that upon searching online it does not appear to be available. I wish to note for the benefit of the applicant that while FCI may hold a copy of the podcast meeting, there is no requirement under the FOI Act for the Department to source a copy for the applicant. If the Department does not hold a copy of the podcast that is the end of the matter.
Having regard to the information before this Office, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the Department has taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant and has explained why it does not hold a copy of the podcast meeting or any further records. In the circumstances, I find that the Department was justified in refusing access to the podcast or any further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that no further records exist or can be found other than those provided to the applicant.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Department's decision. I find that the Department was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to further records related to the podcast meeting on the basis that no further records exist or can be found.
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