ICO Decisions On Four PATI Requests
Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez issued four decisions regarding the Bermuda Civil Aviation Authority, Information & Digital Technologies Department, Ministry of Health Headquarters, and the Cabinet Office Headquarters.
- Decision 32/2024, Bermuda Civil Aviation Authority [PDF]
- Decision 33/2024, Department of Information & Digital Technologies [PDF]
- Decision 34/2024, Ministry of Health Headquarters [PDF]
- Decision 35/2024, Cabinet Office [PDF]
A spokesperson said, “On 29 November 2024, Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez issued Decision 32/2024, Bermuda Civil Aviation Authority, Decision 33/2024, Information & Digital Technologies Department, Decision 34/2024, Ministry of Health Headquarters, and Decision 35/2024, The Cabinet Office Headquarters.
“In Decision 32/2024, the Information Commissioner considered the Bermuda Civil Aviation Authority’s decision on a PATI request seeking airport audit and inspection reports and other documentation by the Authority’s technical officers. Commissioner Gutierrez affirmed the Authority’s decision to administratively deny the PATI request, in full, because she agreed that processing the request would have created a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption to the Authority’s other work. The parties had been unable to agree on a reasonably narrowed request scope, which would have allowed the Authority to continue processing the request. Decision 32/2024 did not require the Authority to take further action.
“In Decisions 33/2024 and 34/2024, the Information Commissioner assessed two public authorities’ decisions on separate PATI requests seeking records on the same topic. The Applicants asked for all records about tech companies BPMS, InnoFund, and i3 and Fastpass, a port-of-entry system project. Originally, each public authority had decided their records were exempt from public access due to a legal claim the tech companies had filed in court against the Government.
“During these reviews, as most of the records contained the companies’ third-party information, the Information Commissioner’s Office also notified the third parties and considered their submissions. Ultimately, Commissioner Gutierrez was not persuaded by either public authority’s reliance on the exemption about prejudice to a trial or adjudication. But Decision 33/2024 found that the Information & Digital Technologies Department was justified, in part, in relying on an exemption to protect public authorities’ deliberative information from public disclosure. Similarly, Decision 34/2024 found that the Ministry of Health Headquarters was justified, in part, in relying on an exemption to prevent public disclosure of information that could have prejudiced negotiations. After applying the personal information exemption to the sets of remaining records in both reviews, Commissioner Gutierrez concluded that each public authority’s decision was upheld in part. The Information & Digital Technologies Department and the Ministry of Health Headquarters each have been ordered to disclose certain records by 15 January 2025.
“In Decision 35/2024, the Information Commissioner found that the Cabinet Office Headquarters had failed to issue an internal review decision on a PATI request seeking records about government spending on a specific PATI request and PATI consultants. The Cabinet Office Headquarters has been ordered to issue the Applicant its internal review decision by 3 January 2025.”
Decision 32/2024 Summary:
Decision 33/2024, Summary:
Decision 34/2024, Summary:
Decision 35/2024, Summary:
