In relation to the second matter concerning potential connections with 'consultant A', it seems to me that the essence of the HSE's argument is that the applicant may draw incorrect inferences from the release of the name of the individual, resulting in potential reputational damage to the individual or to the individual's colleagues. It has not explained how such reputational damage might occur, in circumstances where it has already clearly indicated to the applicant in its internal review decision that any assumptions the applicant might make as to the identity of 'consultant A' and consultant A's involvement in certain matters are incorrect. Neither is it apparent to me, having considered the evidence before me, as to how such harm might occur. It is important to note that under section 22(12)(b) of the FOI Act, a decision to refuse a request is presumed not to have been justified unless the FOI body satisfies this Office that the refusal was, indeed, justified. Moreover, this Office has, on many occasions, explained that the potential for a requester to misunderstand information is, generally speaking, not a good cause for refusing access to the records of public bodies as such an argument seems to be based on an assumption that public bodies are incapable of explaining their records to the public. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the redacted information is exempt from release on the basis of section 37(1).
