Mr T and Defence Forces

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Senior Investigator
• Judgment Date: 03 December 2021
• Case Outcome: The Senior Investigator annulled the Defence Forces' decision and directed it to consider the request afresh.
• Court: Information Commission
• Respondent: Defence Forces
• Record Number: OIC-106795-Q5R6M6

Whether the Defence Forces was justified in refusing, under section 15(1)(c) of the Act, the applicant’s request for records relating to the applicant sent or received by named parties concerning a number of specified matters on the ground that processing the request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, its work

OIC-106795-Q5R6M6

Background

This case arises from a previous decision by this Office in OIC-58250. In that case, I annulled the Defence Forces’ decision to refuse the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act and I directed it to consider the request afresh. In that case, the applicant initially made a request (Request A) for the following:

1. Any and all correspondence or emails pertaining to him sent or received by six named members of a named unit (unit A) from 26 September 2012 to 30 August 2014
2. Any and all correspondence or emails pertaining to him sent or received by four named members of another named unit (unit B) during that same period
3. Any and all correspondence or emails pertaining to him sent or received by a named member of a medical unit during that same period.

In response, the Defence Forces informed him that initial searches had returned 571 emails and that his request fell to be refused under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act. It asked the applicant to refine his request, which he declined to do at that stage and the request was refused under section 15(1)(c). Following this, the applicant submitted a fresh request (Request B) on 7 May 2019, wherein he reduced the number of individuals involved and the timeframe. He identified four members of unit A, three members of unit B, and the same member of the medical unit. He narrowed the timeframe to 1 January 2013 to 30 August 2014. He said the records sought pertain to a number of specified matters, namely;

• His medical condition,
• His regimental duties,
• His redress,
• His detachment to unit B,
• His movement to a named barracks on a work detail,
• His fitness test, and
• His medical disposal.

On 28 August 2019, the Defence Forces part-granted the request and released 22 records it had identified as coming within the scope of the request. The Defence Forces affirmed its original decision at internal review stage, following which the applicant sought a review by this Office of that decision.

In my decision, I noted that the searches conducted by the Defence Forces in response to Request A that had returned 571 emails were based on the individuals named in that request and the time-frame specified. However, when processing Request B, the Defence Forces had used precise search terms in its email search in an effort to identify relevant records. I found that the Defence Forces could reasonably have been expected to conduct a similar search to the one undertaken in respect of Request A, based on the reduced number of individuals and the reduced time-frame, with a view to determining how many of those 571 emails were captured by the refined request. The Defence Forces acknowledged that it was possible that further relevant emails might exist that were not identified in its searches if they did not contain the precise search terms used. Accordingly, I annulled the decision of the Defence Forces and directed it to process the applicant’s request afresh. I issued that decision on 1 December 2020.

As the Defence Forces did not issue a fresh decision on the remitted request, the applicant sought an internal review of the deemed refusal of his request on 4 February 2021. Again, the Defence Forces failed to issue a decision within the required timeframe and following engagements with this Office, it issued its effective position on 16 April 2021, in which it refused the request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act. On 26 April 2021, the applicant sought a review by this Office of the Defence Forces’ 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 between the Defence Forces and the applicant as set out above and to the correspondence between this Office and both parties on the matter. I have also had regard to both parties’ submissions in case OIC-58250, insofar as they are relevant to this review. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.

Scope of Review

This review is concerned solely with whether the Defence Forces was justified in its decision to refuse the applicant's request under section 15(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that processing the request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, its work.

Analysis and Findings

Section 15(1)(c) provides that an FOI body may refuse to grant a request if it considers that granting the request would, by reason of the number or nature of the records concerned or the nature of the information concerned, require the retrieval and examination of such number of records or an examination of such kind of records concerned as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, or...