Decision
Mr. Z and Department of Justice
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-152070-W5D6Z9
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. Z and Department of Justice [2024] IEIC 152070 (14 November 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEIC/2024/152070.html
Cite as: [2024] IEIC 152070
[New search] [Help]
Whether the Department was justified in its decision to extend the period for consideration of the applicant-™s FOI request under section 14 of the FOI Act based on the number of records to which the request related
14 November 2024
In a request dated 21 August 2024, the applicant sought access all records regarding the appointment of two named officials appointed to the Office of Official Assignee in Bankruptcy, including a copy of their employment contracts (with personal information redacted other than the name and date). The applicant said the first named official was appointed on 19 December 2008 and the second named official was appointed on 16 November 2020. On 26 August 2024, the Department acknowledged the request and explained that a decision could be expected to issue not later than 18 September 2024. The Department-™s acknowledgement also said there are some limited situations under the FOI Act, where a final decision may take longer than four weeks. It said if this occurs it would advise the applicant promptly in writing setting out the reason and the new decision date.
On 16 September 2024, the Department notified the applicant in writing that the Deciding Officer assigned to process his request sought a time extension of four weeks to process his request. The Department said that under section 14 of the FOI Act a deciding officer may extend the standard four-week period in which to answer a request. The Department said it would make every effort to respond to the applicant-™s request no later than 16 October 2024. On 16 September 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Department-™s decision to extend the time to process his request.
On 16 October 2024, the Department issued its decision on the applicant-™s request. When contacted by this Office about the time extension applied by the Department, the applicant said that he wished to proceed with this review. The applicant noted that the documentation he received from the Department in response to his request is minimal and said that it did not warrant an extension. It is important to note that this review does not concern the Department-™s substantive decision on access to the records sought by the applicant.
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 Department in support of its decision. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the Department-™s decision to extend the time frame for considering the applicant-™s request was in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the FOI Act.
The Department did not initially specify in its correspondence with the applicant whether it was relying on section 14(1)(a) or 14(1)(b) of the FOI Act, nor did it provide the applicant with reasons for applying an extension. I wish to note here that FOI bodies are required under section 14(2) of the Act to provide the requester with reasons for the time extension. In its submissions to this Office, the Department said it applied the time extension in accordance with section 14(1)(a) of the Act.
Section 13(1) of the Act provides that an FOI body shall make a decision on a request for records within four weeks of receipt of the request. However, under section 14(1)(a), the body may extend that four-week period by up to four further weeks where it considers that the request relates to such number of records that compliance with section 13(1) within the four weeks specified is not reasonably possible.
In its submissions to this Office, the Department said four records were found (six records are noted on the Schedule of records, two of which were refused) and were stored in emails, on document libraries, and on personnel files. The Department said one of the records was a hard-copy file relating to a retired staff member which was stored off-site, which had to be ordered by HR for retrieval by another business unit outside of HR. The Department said three staff were involved in the search and the time involved was approximately five hours. In addition, the Department said it sought legal advice from its Legal Unit as there was an ongoing related matter before the courts. The Department said that a delay in receiving the legal advice, and consideration of the advice received, resulted in the Department seeking the extension to reply to the request.
The circumstances in which an FOI body may extend the four-week period for processing a request are quite narrow and specific. Section 14 does not provide for extensions of the time-frame for considering requests on the basis of administrative challenges arising. Under section 14(1)(a), the FOI body is entitled to extend the decision making period only where the request relates to such number of records that compliance with the four-week time-frame set out in section 13 is not reasonably possible.
The FOI Act provides no guidance on the number of records that might be involved before an extension can be appropriately applied. Therefore, each case must be considered on its merits based on the particular facts and circumstances. Nevertheless, the provision is clear that a decision to extend the period must be based on the number of records to which the request relates.
In my view, it is evident from the number of records at issue in this case that the Department has provided insufficient evidence to support a claim that the request related to such a number of records that compliance with the four-week period was not reasonably possible. I acknowledge the Department-™s comments on the reasons for the delay, however, the applicant-™s request was ultimately concerned with a relatively small number of records.
It seems to me that the time actually spent in processing the request (five hours) and the number of records ultimately provided to the applicant do not support an argument that the extension was necessary. While I have noted the Department-™s comments, the provisions of section 14 are very specific and do not allow for the extension of the period for consideration of a request in the circumstances set out by the Department. The fact remains that there were only a small number of records at issue. In the circumstances of this case, the Department has not satisfied me that an extension was warranted.
Accordingly, while my findings in this case can have no tangible benefit for the applicant given that the Department has already issued its substantive decision on his request, I find that the Department-™s decision to extend the period for considering the applicant-™s request was not in accordance with the provisions of section 14(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the Department-™s decision to extend the period for consideration of the applicant-™s request under section 14(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
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