BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Irish Information Commissioner's Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Information Commissioner's Decisions >> Ms X and An Garda Síochána [2024] IEIC 148108 (28 June 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEIC/2024/148108.html Cite as: [2024] IEIC 148108 |
||
[New search] [Help]
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-148108-Z4D6Y9
Published on
Whether AGS was justified in refusing access to records relating to the Garda Vetting of a named individual on the ground that the FOI Act does not apply to the records sought, pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(n) of the Act
26 June 2024
On 5 March 2024, the applicant submitted a request to AGS requesting records to show whether a named individual was Garda Vetted between certain dates. On 6 March 2024, AGS refused the request on the grounds that the FOI Act does not apply to the records sought, pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(n) of the Act, as AGS is a partially included agency under the FOI Act, only insofar as it relates to administrative records relating to human resources, or finance or procurement matters. In its decision, AGS said that HR records refer to personal records of staff working within An Garda Síochána, that financial records relate to financial expenditure of the organisation and that procurement records relate to the contracting of services and the tendering process associated with same.
On 19 March 2024, the applicant sought an internal review of that decision, following which AGS affirmed its original decision. On 10 April 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the decision of AGS.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the correspondence referred to above and to submissions made to this Office by AGS on the matter. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether AGS was justified in refusing the applicant's request for records which show whether Garda Vetting of a named individual had occurred between various dates on the ground that the Act does not apply to such records, pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(n) of the Act.
It is important to state at the outset that the FOI Act applies only to a very limited category of records held by AGS.
Section 6(2) of the FOI Act provides that an entity specified in Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Act shall, subject to the provisions of that Part, be a public body for the purposes of the Act. Schedule 1, Part 1 contains details of bodies that are partially included for the purposes of the Act and also details of the certain specified records that are excluded. If the records sought come within the description of the exclusions in Part 1, then the Act does not apply and no right of access exists to such records held by the body.
Schedule 1, Part 1(n) provides that AGS is not a public body for the purposes of the FOI Act other than in relation to administrative records relating to human resources, or finance or procurement matters. In other words, the only records held by AGS that are subject to the FOI Act are those that relate to administrative matters concerning human resources, finance, or procurement. In accordance with Part 1(n), all other records held by AGS are excluded.
The FOI Act does not define the term "administrative record" as provided for in Part 1(n) apart from stating that they relate to human resources, or finance or procurement matters. This Office considers the term to cover records relating to the administration of the body, as opposed to say, records relating to its operational matters or core functions. In the case of a number of specified public bodies, the right of access afforded by the FOI Act is restricted to records relating to their general administration. We consider the term general administration to refer to records which have to do with the management of a public body such as records relating to personnel, pay matters, recruitment, accounts, information technology, accommodation, internal organisation, office procedures and the like. In the case of AGS, the category of administrative records to which a right of access applies is limited further; they must also concern human resources, finance, or procurement matters.
In submissions to this Office, AGS explained that the records requested by the applicant relate to Garda Vetting records. It added that Garda Vetting is carried out by the Garda Vetting Unit and this involves checking if a person has a criminal record on the Pulse system. AGS said that this is an operational policing matter and is outside the scope of the FOI Act for AGS as the records sought by the applicant clearly do not come under human resources, finance or procurement.
Having regard to the nature of the request and the description of the records sought, I am satisfied that the records concern the core function of AGS, as opposed to administrative matters relating to human resources, or finance or procurement. Accordingly, I find that AGS was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought on the ground that they are specifically excluded from the scope of the FOI Act, pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(n) of the Act.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the decision of AGS to refuse the applicant's request pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(n) of the Act.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Richard Crowley
Investigator
