ICO Decisions On Two PATI Requests
Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez has issued two decisions on PATI requests involving the Ministry of Legal Affairs Headquarters and Ministry of National Security Headquarters.
A spokesperson said, “On 1 May 2024, Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez issued two decisions: Decision 16/2024, Ministry of Legal Affairs Headquarters and Decision 17/2024, Ministry of National Security Headquarters.
“In Decision 16/2024, Ministry of Legal Affairs Headquarters, the Applicant had made a PATI request for various records related to legal aid. During the Information Commissioner’s review, the Applicant narrowed their challenge of the Ministry Headquarters’ response to three specific categories of records: the number of cases assigned to two specific counsel, the Legal Aid Committee’s guidance on counsel assignment, and the Legal Aid Office’s contracts with two specific counsel.
“In her decision, the Information Commissioner found that the Ministry Headquarters was justified in administratively denying access to records containing the number of cases assigned to two specific counsel and the counsel assignment guidance. She was satisfied that the Ministry Headquarters took reasonable steps before concluding that the statistical records and the counsel assignment guidance did not exist. She was also satisfied that while the Legal Aid Office [which came under the Ministry Headquarters] held the underlying records that could be used to create the statistical records, retrieving and examining them from each individual client file would result in substantial and unreasonable interference with the Legal Aid Office’s other work.
“For the contracts, the Ministry Headquarters was not justified to deny access to the consultancy contract with one of the counsel under the breach of confidence exemption in the PATI Act. But the Information Commissioner concluded that parts of the consultancy contract, as well as a responsive employment contract in its entirety, contained personal information and their disclosure was not in the public interest. As a result, the Information Commissioner has ordered the Ministry Headquarters to disclose the consultancy contract, minus certain personal information of the counsel, by 12 June 2024.
“In Decision 17/2024, Ministry of National Security Headquarters, the Applicant had made a PATI request for records related to payments to the 2 December 2016 protesters. The request asked for five categories of records, but this Decision focused on three of them: the Ministerial Statement about the settlement payments to protesters, all communications about the payments and a list of payouts to the protesters [including the amounts and recipients].
“In response to the PATI request, the Ministry Headquarters disclosed an extensive number of records, including the draft version of the Ministerial Statement. But the Applicant challenged the reasonableness of the search conducted by the Ministry Headquarters as well as its claim that certain records were exempt under various provisions in the PATI Act.
“The Information Commissioner found that the Ministry Headquarters’ initial search [which it said resulted in over 125,000 responsive records, including 5,100 encrypted emails], was not reasonable. But during the Information Commissioner’s review, corrective steps had been taken which met the reasonable search requirements. It was then clarified that not all 125,000+ records were responsive to the PATI request and that only 18 were in fact encrypted.
“Additionally, in her Decision, the Information Commissioner agreed with the Ministry Headquarters that certain records should be withheld as Cabinet documents or because they contained personal information. Upon inspection of the records, she also found that some of the records fell outside the scope of the PATI Act because they were created or obtained by the Attorney General’s Chambers while performing its functions as the Government’s legal advisor.
“The Information Commissioner disagreed that two of the withheld records were exempt under the deliberations of public authorities’ exemption in the PATI Act. She also found that certain personal information of an elected official and an individual who held a senior role within a public authority should have been disclosed under the public interest test. Given their roles and positions, these individuals should have expected that some personal information relating to their work would be made available to the public, for transparency and accountability purposes. As a result, the Ministry Headquarters has been ordered to disclose a limited number of records to the Applicant by 12 June 2024.”
The full version of Decision 16/2024 follows below [PDF here]:
The full version of Decision 17/2024 follows below [PDF here]:
Read More About
Category: All
