Mr X and Irish Prison Service (FOI Act 2014) [2019] IEIC 180456 (1 August 2019)

Mr X and Irish Prison Service (FOI Act 2014) [2019] IEIC 180456 (1 August 2019)

The IPS was justified under section 32(1)(b) in refusing access to the identities of IPS and Garda staff as disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger their safety. Section 35(1)(a) did not apply as no duty of confidence to a third party was established. Section 37(1) applied to certain sentences containing third-party personal information, and the public interest did not outweigh privacy rights.

Citation
[2019] IEIC 180456
Parties
Applicant: Mr X; Respondent: Irish Prison Service
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 August 2019
Procedural Posture
FOI Appeal / Decision of Information Commissioner Following Review
Outcome
Varied
Legal Topics
FOI Act 2014, Exemptions to Disclosure, Personal Information, Confidential Information, Public Safety
Administrative Law Freedom of Information FOI Act 2014 Exemptions to Disclosure Personal Information Confidential Information Public Safety

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr X

Applicant

Irish Prison Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOI Appeal / Decision of Information Commissioner Following Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the IPS was justified in refusing access to the identities of staff members and certain information within an Operation Summary Report under sections 32(1)(b), 35(1)(a), and 37(1) of the FOI Act

Ratio Decidendi

The IPS was justified under section 32(1)(b) in refusing access to the identities of IPS and Garda staff as disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger their safety. Section 35(1)(a) did not apply as no duty of confidence to a third party was established. Section 37(1) applied to certain sentences containing third-party personal information, and the public interest did not outweigh privacy rights.

Court Disposition

Varied

Orders

  • Refusal of access to staff identities under section 32(1)(b) upheld.
  • Refusal of access to certain third-party personal information under section 37(1) upheld.