ICO Decisions On Police Service & Health Ministry
Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez issued three decisions on March 25 and 27, 2024, involving the Bermuda Police Service [BPS] and the Ministry of Health Headquarters.
A spokesperson said, “On 25 and 27 March 2024, Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez issued three decisions. Decisions 10/2024 and 11/2024 involved the Bermuda Police Service [BPS], while Decision 12/2024 involved the Ministry of Health Headquarters [Ministry Headquarters].
“In Decision 10/2024, the Applicant had made a PATI request for emails between the Commissioner of Police and the Governor of Bermuda sent or received in October 2021. The BPS denied access to the record because disclosure of it would undermine the deliberative process of a public authority, including the free and frank discussion and provision of advice in the course of that process. However, during the review the BPS abandoned its reliance on this exemption to withhold the record and confirmed that it was only withholding personal information contained in the record.
“The Information Commissioner found that the BPS was correct to withhold part of the record because it contained personal information, and it was not in the public interest to disclose the personal information of individuals holding non-senior posts. For individuals holding senior public posts, however, the Information Commissioner found that it was in the public interest to disclose some of the personal information in the remainder of the record, including their names, the fact of the communications and the timing of the communications, and that such disclosure was necessary to further the public interest in transparency and accountability.
“In Decision 11/2024, the Applicant had made a PATI request for records related to the execution of a search warrant. The Applicant withdrew part of the request and the record considered in the review was a search report containing contemporaneous notes from the execution of the search warrant. The BPS denied access to the record because disclosure of it would prejudice the effectiveness of a disciplinary investigation being conducted by the BPS and the fair trial or impartial adjudication of a matter.
“The Information Commissioner found that the BPS had not justified its reliance on the exemptions because it had not explained how disclosure of the record could prejudice the effectiveness of the disciplinary investigation or the pending judicial review related to the search warrant. The Information Commissioner, however, invoked the personal information exemption to withhold parts of the record containing personal information, which was not in the public interest to disclose.
“In Decision 12/2024, the Applicant had made a PATI request for records on the Government’s Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory and payments made to resPartner, who provided booking solutions for COVID-19 tests and the application for travel authorization during the pandemic. The Ministry Headquarters disclosed certain responsive records but withheld the rest because it believed that they contained personal information, commercial information and information received in confidence. The Ministry Headquarters also believed that some of the records could not be disclosed because they were Cabinet documents, or their disclosure was prohibited by the Bermuda Health Council Act.
“The Information Commissioner found that the PATI Act did not apply to a few records because they were created or obtained by the Attorney General’s Chambers while performing its functions as the Government’s legal adviser. She also upheld the Ministry Headquarters’ decision to withhold the records under various exemptions, but only in part, and required some parts of the records to be disclosed.
“In all three Decisions, the Information Commissioner ordered the relevant public authorities to disclose a redacted copy of the records to the Applicant.”
The full version of Decision 10/2024 follows below [PDF here]:
The full version of Decision 11/2024 follows below [PDF here]:
The full version of Decision 12/2024 follows below [PDF here]:
