Information Commissioner Issues Two Decisions
Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez has issued two decisions regarding the Ministry of Social Development and Seniors Headquarters and the Office of the Clerk of the Legislature.
A spokesperson said, “On 23 and 24 December 2021, Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez issued Decision 19/2021, Ministry of Social Development and Seniors Headquarters [Ministry Headquarters] and Decision 20/2021, Office of the Clerk of the Legislature [Office of the Clerk], respectively.
“The Information Commissioner’s Decision 19/2021 considered the Ministry Headquarters’ failure to issue an internal review decision within the six-week statutory timeline. The Information Commissioner ordered the Ministry Headquarters to conduct an internal review and issue a decision. The Ministry has complied with the Decision and Order and is therefore not required to take further action.
“In Decision 20/2021, the Information Commissioner considered the Office of the Clerk’s refusal of most of the records responsive to a Public Access to Information [PATI] request for records on a complaint made against a former Member of Parliament. The Information Commissioner agreed with the Office of the Clerk that further disclosure of records would not be justified.
“The Information Commissioner found that the PATI Act does not apply to some of the responsive records because they were created or obtained by a public authority listed in section 4[1][b] of the PATI Act in the course of carrying out its functions and do not relate to its general administration. While the PATI Act applies to the remaining records, the Information Commissioner is satisfied that these records are exempt under the parliamentary privilege or personal information exemption.
“The Information Commissioner carefully considered the public interest in disclosure of the personal information in the responsive records. She concluded that the previous disclosure made by the Office of the Clerk has satisfied the public interest in deterrence of wrong-doing. Given the specific circumstances of the case, however, the Information Commissioner concluded that further disclosure of personal information of the relevant parties would not be in the public interest. Decisions 19/2021 and 20/2021 are available on www.ico.bm.”
The full version of Decision 19/2021 follows below [PDF here]:
The full version of Decision 20/2021 follows below [PDF here]:
