The applicant subsequently requested that this review be put on hold pending the outcome of a Court of Appeal hearing on another case involving the applicant and the Department. The matter of access to submissions was raised in that case. During the course of the review, the applicant also informed this Office that he had requested a copy of the Department-�s submissions from the Department under the GDPR, so that he could make additional comments based on the contents of the Department-�s full submission.
Having examined the Department-�s submission and all correspondence between this Office-�s Investigator and the applicant, I am satisfied that he has been afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to make informed submissions on the adequacy of the statement of reasons provided by the Department. I see no reason to delay this review any further on the basis of such separate, ongoing disputes or requests.
Role of this Office
I should also state that while I have had close regard to the applicant-�s submission, a large part of his comments relate to the Department-�s handling of his data subject access requests, his appeals to the DPC and the application of data protection legislation to these matters. The applicant provided copies of background documents pertaining to his data subject access requests to the Department. I note that he also referred to the Department-�s failure to include details of his right to appeal its decision on a particular access request. It is important to note, as a preliminary matter in this regard, that this Office has no remit to investigate complaints, to adjudicate on how FOI bodies perform their functions generally, or to act as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with respect to actions taken by FOI bodies.
Analysis and Findings
Section 10 -� Statement of reasons
Section 10 of the FOI Act provides that a person who is affected by an act of an FOI body, and has a material interest in a matter affected by the act or to which it relates, is entitled to a statement of reasons for the act, as well as a statement of any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of that act.
In its internal review decision of 18 November 2020, the Department said that it considered it important that data subjects fully understand the reasons decisions are made concerning their personal data. The internal reviewer stated that he was therefore restating the reasons already provided to the applicant in its earlier decision letters. He set out the Department-�s reasons for its actions as follows:
- The Department was of the view that the purpose of the applicant-�s access requests was directed at an objective unrelated to the right of access to personal data or any other of the data subject-�s rights as provided by articles 12 to 22 of the GDPR.
- The long-running and continuing pursuit of his grievance concerning his unsuccessful applications for membership of the international observation roster dating back to 2013 clearly appeared to be the motive for his requests. The Department considered this to be evident in the volume and pattern of his correspondence.
- The Department was of the view that the applicant-�s requests were in pursuance of his dispute and were manifestly unfounded, being both vexatious and malicious in intent and they amounted to an abuse of the right of access.
During the course of this review, the Department provided this Office with copies of its individual decisions on the applicant-�s access requests. It said that as a significant level of detail was provided to the applicant in these letters of refusal, rather than simply repeat what was already provided, the statement of reasons provided in the internal review summarises the reasons in those letters. It said the objective of this was to explain as clearly as possible to the applicant why his access requests were refused.
Having considered the Department-�s submission, this Office-�s Investigator subsequently informed the applicant of her view that the Department-�s internal review decision, taken together with the decision letters, were sufficient for the purposes of section 10 of the FOI Act. In his response, the applicant indicated that he did not agree with the Investigator-�s view and provided an analysis of why he believed the Investigator-�s proposed recommendation on the matter was incorrect, pursuant to the stated aims of the FOI Act.
This Office considers that a statement of reasons should be intelligible and adequate having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. The statement should be sufficiently clear to enable an applicant to understand without undue difficulty why the FOI body acted as it did. A statement does not necessarily have to contain a detailed clarification of all issues identified by an applicant as relevant to a particular act or decision. It is noteworthy that there are practical limits to the degree of explanation which can be given as to why a particular subjective judgement was made. If a public body adequately explains why it acted as it did, that is the end of the matter in terms of the obligations on the body under section 10 of the FOI Act. As set out above, this Office has no role in determining whether the decision or act of the FOI body was justified. It is sufficient, for the purpose of compliance with section 10, that the body adequately explains why it acted as it did.
The -�acts-� of the Department, the subject of the applicant-�s present application under section 10 of the FOI Act, are the Department-�s decisions that the applicant-�s data subject access requests were -�manifestly unreasonable-� pursuant to the provisions of the GDPR. In my view, the Department-�s internal review response of 18 November 2020, of itself, set out a statement of reasons, which, while succinct, was intelligible and sufficiently clear to enable the applicant to understand why the Department took those decisions. In the circumstances, I find that the Department has complied with the requirements of section 10 of the FOI Act in this case.
Decision
Having carried out a review under section 22 (2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the decision of the Department in this case. I find that the Department has provided an adequate statement of reasons as to why the applicant-�s access requests were refused.
Right of Appeal
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out the 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.
Deirdre McGoldrick
Senior Investigator
BAILII: