Ms X and Mr Y and a Hospital [2007] IEIC 050222 (12 June 2007)

Ms X and Mr Y and a Hospital [2007] IEIC 050222 (12 June 2007)

The Information Commissioner found that the hospital had not provided evidence specific to the case that would rebut the constitutional presumption in favour of parental access or demonstrate that providing a copy of the videotape would conflict with a legal duty, prejudice protected interests, or breach confidentiality. The Commissioner held that the FOI Act and constitutional principles require access in the form requested unless clear grounds exist to refuse, which were not established here.

Citation
[2007] IEIC 050222
Parties
Applicant: Ms X; Applicant: Mr Y; Respondent: a Hospital
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Review / Decision of the Information Commissioner on Review
Outcome
Hospital's decision annulled; access to the videotape to be given in the form requested (copy provided to parents).
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Access to Medical Records, Parental Rights, Privacy, Confidentiality, Best Interests of the Child
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Health Law Freedom of Information Access to Medical Records Parental Rights Privacy Confidentiality +1 more

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms X

Applicant

Mr Y

Applicant

a Hospital

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freedom of Information Review / Decision of the Information Commissioner on Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether provision of a copy of a videotape of interviews with a minor to the parents would conflict with a legal duty or obligation of the hospital under the FOI Act
  2. 2 Whether provision of a copy would prejudice, impair or damage any interest protected by Part III of the FOI Act
  3. 3 Whether provision of a copy would be in the minor's best interests

Ratio Decidendi

The Information Commissioner found that the hospital had not provided evidence specific to the case that would rebut the constitutional presumption in favour of parental access or demonstrate that providing a copy of the videotape would conflict with a legal duty, prejudice protected interests, or breach confidentiality. The Commissioner held that the FOI Act and constitutional principles require access in the form requested unless clear grounds exist to refuse, which were not established here.

Court Disposition

Hospital's decision annulled; access to the videotape to be given in the form requested (copy provided to parents).

Orders

  • The hospital is directed to provide the applicants with a copy of the videotape of the interviews with their child.