The Information Commissioner’s Office in the Cayman Islands has released the 2014-2015 Third and Fourth Quarter Reports. The two quarterly reports are shown below for your reference and are available on the ICO website at http://www.infocomm.ky/document-library.

2014-2015 THIRD QUARTER REPORT

1 January-31 March 2015

The purpose of this Quarterly Report is to ensure the ongoing transparency and accountability of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the discharge of its statutory responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Law 2007 (FOI Law). This Report focuses on the ICO itself, and also provides broader statistical information on the operation of the FOI Law in the Cayman Islands government.

QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS  The ICO moved to new premises on the 3rd floor of Anderson Square.

 The judicial review of Hearing Decision 41-0000 involving two records related to Operation Tempura took place in a two-day court hearing.

 The Acting Information Commissioner discussed his objections to the suggested amalgamation of various offices with the ICO under a single Ombudsman, with the Deputy Governor’s Strategic Policy Advisor who has been tasked with writing a business case.

MESSAGE FROM THE ACTING INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

As   the ICO has   started a second   year without a permanent, appointed Information Commissioner, the office faces both old and new challenges. Nonetheless, we continue to investigate appeals, decide hearings raised under the FOI Law, and protect the rights created under the Law.

Particularly the ICO’s proactive outreach activities and compliance investigations are becoming increasingly inhibited by the ongoing vacancy in the ICO’s top post. During the third quarter the resignation of the Appeals & Compliance Analyst also temporarily impeded our ability to respond to appeals made under the FOI Law in a timely fashion.

In an attempt to save costs, the ICO has moved to new premises in the Anderson Square building under a joint lease with the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) and the Office of the Complaints Commissioner (OCC). While the three entities share a kitchen, board room and restrooms, our respective office spaces remain – appropriately – separate. This separation is necessary considering our distinct and independent mandates.

The much-anticipated judicial review of my decision in Hearing 41-0000, in which I had ordered the disclosure of two records relating to Operation Tempura, took place over a two-day period in the Grand Court. Although most of the Governor’s arguments were rejected by the presiding Judge, the matter was sent back to me for a new reconsideration under section 16(b) of the FOi Law, which exempts law enforcement records from the general right of access under certain circumstances.

A minor suggestion in the EY Report on the possibility of amalgamating the ICO, OCC and a yet to be formed Police Complaints Commission (as well as the oversight function for Data Protection) under a single Ombudsman appears to have found new life. Once more, I provided Government with my reasons for opposing this idea which in my opinion represents significant risks for Freedom of Information and seems to be based on a misconceived hope for cost savings.

I invite anyone with questions on the operations of the FOI Law and their rights and obligations under it, to contact the ICO.

Jan Liebaers

Acting Information Commissioner

THE EY REPORT AND THE ICO
As reported in detail in the last quarterly report, a seemingly minor suggestion in the EY Report on the possibility of amalgamating the ICO, OCC and a yet to be formed Police Complaints Commission (as well as the oversight function for Data Protection) under a single Ombudsman appears to have found new life.

The responsibility for formulating a business case in relation to this proposal has passed to the Deputy Governor’s Office, and the Acting Information Commissioner met with the Strategic Policy Advisor to the Deputy Governor and provided him with his reasons for opposing these plans.

Detailed reasons for skepticism were already provided in the last quarterly report. These included a lack of clear reasons for such a significant departure from the status quo, a vague and apparently misconceived hope for cost savings, and the significant risks these plans pose to the independence of decision making in regard to Freedom of Information, as well as Complaints, Police Complaints and Data Protection.

The reader is referred to the second quarterly report for 2014-15 available on the ICO website for further details: www.infocomm.ky/outreach

INVESTIGATION OF APPEALS
During the third quarter 4 new appeals were opened, 3 were closed and one progressed to a hearing for consideration by the Acting Information Commissioner, but was later discontinued by the applicant.

The following appeals were closed without a formal hearing:

Appeal 010/14 – Ministry of Education, Employment and Gender Affairs
An applicant requested copies of RBC credit card statements for all the Ministry’s credit card holders, including chief officers and ministers past and present, from 2005 until 2012.

The Ministry claimed that the records were exempt from disclosure because their release would prejudice the security of the Cayman Islands (s.15), affect the conduct of an investigation and a prosecution (s.16(b)(i)), and would prejudice the Ministry’s effective conduct of public affairs (s.20(1)(d)).

Despite a prolonged effort at mediation on the part of the ICO, the Ministry’s views remained unchanged. However, as the matter was progressed to a hearing before the Acting Information Commissioner, the Ministry reversed its decision to withhold the records and released them in full.

Appeal 013/14 – Planning Department
An applicant requested records from the Planning Department dating back to 1970 related to a land parcel in West Bay.

The applicant received some records, but believed more records should be held. After discussions with the applicant and the Planning Department it was determined that additional records were available for inspection at the National Archive. The applicant viewed these records and chose not to pursue the matter further.

Appeal 002/14 – Department of Labour and Pensions
An applicant requested records connected in any way with the Chamber of Commerce Pension Plan, specifically, reports and returns that were mandated to be completed under the National Pensions Law and related regulations.

The Information Manager for the Department responded and stated that the request could not be made pursuant to the FOI Law, and that the applicant should contact the pension administrator directly in order to obtain the records.

Upon Internal Review the Acting Chief Officer of the Department provided partial access to some of the requested records, but withheld some of the information because he felt it would result in an unreasonable disclosure of third party personal information (s.23(1)). The applicant believed that more records should be available and appealed to the ICO.

After a lengthy period of “shuttle-diplomacy” between the applicant and the Department, the ICO managed to secure the release of more records, and the Department confirmed that it did not hold some of the specific records the applicant was seeking. The applicant decided that he was satisfied with the further release of records and the accompanying explanation and agreed to not pursue the matter further.

HEARING OF APPEALS

New Hearings Commenced
Hearing 44-01114 – Health Services Authority
A request was made for records relating to observer and shadowing opportunities at the George Town Hospital. The Health Services Authority decided not to comply with the request as it believed it was vexatious, under section 9(a) of the FOI Law. Preparations were made to start a formal hearing of this dispute before the Acting Information Commissioner, but the applicant abandoned the matter and the hearing was discontinued.

Hearing Decisions Issued
Decision 39-02513 – Department of Planning, 3 March 2015
An FOI request was made for access to records relating to the Kai Village Planned Area
Development in North Side. This was the third Hearing on this topic.

In its response the Department offered the applicant access to the responsive records by means of onsite inspection in its offices. It also withheld four records relying on the exemption in

section 17(a), which protects legal professional privilege. An internal review was conducted by the Chief Officer, and the matter was then appealed to the ICO.

During the appeal numerous records were disclosed on the Department’s website, including all the drawings and plans relating to the proposed development. The dispute over the remaining records could not be resolved amicably and proceeded to a formal hearing.

In Decision 39 the Acting Information Commissioner found that three of the records were exempted under section 17(a) because they were privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege. However, although one record was found to be legally privileged, the exemption only applies for 20 years, and the record was ordered disclosed.

Decision 39 is available on the ICO website at www.infocomm.ky/appeals.

Release of Responsive Records
There were no disclosure orders to comply with this quarter in regard to the release of responsive records.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
The much-anticipated judicial review of the Acting Information Commissioner’s decision in Hearing 41-0000 took place in the Grand Court. This matter concerns two records relating to Operation Tempura, namely a complaint made to Governor Taylor in 2010 and the Governor’s
2011 response to it. Both the former Information Commissioner and the Acting Information Commissioner had ordered the records disclosed in consecutive decisions, but on both occasions those decisions were challenged by the Governor.

After a two-day hearing in the Grand Court on 10-11 February, Acting Justice Timothy Owen quashed the Acting Commissioner’s order for disclosure, and ordered a reconsideration by the Commissioner on the basis of section 16(b) of the FOI Law. This exemption relates to law enforcement, and was one of several new exemptions claimed by the Governor, but not heard by the Acting Commissioner, all but one of which were rejected by the Judge. In court, the Governor did not challenge the Commissioner’s decision on section 20(1)(d), which had constituted the bulk of the arguments in the previous reconsideration in Hearing 41-00000.

The full judgment in The Governor of the Cayman Islands v The Information Commissioner (Cause No. G 188 of 2014) can be found on the website of the Judicial Administration. At the end of the second quarter we were awaiting the final order associated with this judgment.

FOI REQUESTS MADE TO GOVERNMENT
Between 1 January 2015 and 31 March 2015, 219 Freedom of Information requests were logged into the central FOI tracking system by public authorities. This represents a 55% increase compared to the same time in the previous financial year. During the same period, 92 requests were closed. A total of 31 out of 90 public authorities received requests in this period.

MEETINGS & PRESENTATIONS
The Acting Information Commissioner presented an up-to-date overview of FOI in the Cayman
Islands to the following boards:

 Tourism Attraction Board, March 2nd
 Cayman Airways, March 3rd
 Water Authority, March 18th

The Acting Commissioner and Acting Deputy Information Commissioner met with Chief Officer Jennifer Ahearn of the Ministry of Health to present comments on the proposed Cancer Registry legislation, on February 26th.

TRAINING & CONFERENCES
 While the FOI Unit remains inactive and unstaffed, the Cabinet Office conducted a series of six FOI training courses over 22 sessions from December 2014 to March 2015, aimed at different stake holders including Information Managers (IMs), managers, public servants, and members of boards and committees. The ICO’s Acting Information Commissioner and Acting Deputy Commissioner contributed to the sessions for IMs. The ICO’s Information Manager, Shelly-Ann Davis attended a session intended for Information Managers as well as a session on the central FOI tracking system, JADE.
 The ICO continues to provide a brief introduction to the work of the office at the monthly
Civil Service new hire orientation sessions and answers queries about the ICO and FOI in general.
 The Acting Deputy Information Commissioner, Cory Martinson, attended the Global Privacy
Summit in Washington DC, March 3-6.

OUTREACH AND PROMOTION
The ICO continues to assist the general public with various FOI related queries which do not constitute appeals under the Law. These can range from helping someone formulate an FOI request, to informing an applicant of their rights under the Law, and assisting a public authority to ensure that proper procedures are followed. While the ICO never comments on the appropriateness of an exemption before an appeal is formally launched, assistance is provided to Information Managers on the processing of requests in compliance with the Law, and the

general meaning of exemptions or exceptions. During this quarter the team logged 30 requests for assistance.

In addition, the ICO regularly provides media interviews, issues press releases, a newsletter and maintains a current website and Facebook page.

ADMINISTRATION AND STAFFING
The ICO has moved to new premises on the third floor of the Anderson Square building, under a joint lease with the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) and the Office of the Complaints Commissioner (OCC). After this cost-saving move the three entities now share a kitchen, board room and restrooms, but otherwise maintain quite separate office spaces. This operational separation is appropriate given the sensitive and independent work undertaken by each office, and the confidential nature of much of the information being processed. The move took place on the weekend of 16 and 17 January, and caused no disruption in our services to the public.

The Appeals and Compliance Analyst, Clara Smith resigned from the ICO at the end of February to take up a post with the Department of Labour and Pensions. The recruitment for a new post holder took place in February and March and an offer of employment was extended to the successful candidate, who will join the ICO team in April.

In January the ICO said farewell to departing Complaints Commissioner, Nicola Williams, who is relocating to the UK to take up the post of Ombudsman for the UK Armed Forces. We wish her every success in this new venture.

2014-2015 FOURTH QUARTER REPORT

1 April-30 June 2015

The purpose of this Quarterly Report is to ensure the ongoing transparency and accountability of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the discharge of its statutory responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Law 2007 (FOI Law). This Report focuses on the ICO itself, and also provides broader statistical information on the operation of the FOI Law in the Cayman Islands government.

2014-2015 Fourth Quarter Report

1 April-30 June 2015

 

QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS

The Order of the Court was published in the judicial review of Decision 41-00000 involving a complaint that was made against certain members of the judiciary and Governor Taylor’s response to it. The matter was again returned to the Commissioner for reconsideration as Hearing (45-00000), and a new submission was received from the Governor’s Office.

The Acting Commissioner issued Hearing Decision 43-00814, involving a request for disclosure of settlement payments made by the Cayman Islands Government to three senior police officers.

 The Hon. Premier referred to Freedom of Information as an “unproductive use of time”
in the Legislative Assembly, but later also called the FOI Law “critical”.

 The Cayman Islands FOI Law was rated among the world’s best in a report by the
Canadian Centre for Law and Democracy.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent entity responsible for hearing, investigating and ruling on appeals
under the Cayman Islands’ Freedom of Information Law, 2007. The ICO also promotes access rights to Government records and
monitors compliance of the public authorities in upholding the FOI Law.

MESSAGE FROM THE ACTING INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Accountability, openness and public participation: these principles are embedded in the Freedom of Information Law, and are an essential part of democracy in the Cayman Islands. A transparent and accountable Public Service ensures that the public knows what decisions government makes and why, as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the Cayman Islands Constitution. Openness and transparency make for a knowledgeable electorate that can participate on an informed basis in decision making, and reduce the likelihhood that public officers may make decisions lightly or in contravention of due process.

As numerous domestic and international examples demonstrate, public officials who know they are being scrutinized are more likely to make carefully considered decisions and follow established procedures. For example, the Government’s travel expenses used to be out of control and hard to produce, but are now carefully managed and routinely published. This is in large part thanks to FOI which provides a key incentive for public servants to be accountable and follow the right process. This in turn saves the public purse significant amounts of money every day, as witnessed by the high cost of settlements paid out by the Government when things do go wrong. Therefore, far from “an unproductive waste of time”, FOI is an important part of any dynamic and well-functioning public administration, which itself is an essential part of any democratic system of government.

It is not clear whether the glass is half full or half empty on the much-vaunted “culture of openness” which was to follow the implementation of FOI. Many public authorities have made significant strides forward by proactively communicating their actions and decisions to the public. However, far too often applicants have to fight an uphill battle when seeking access to information that is important to them and that should often already be in the public realm to begin with. Some applicants get downright ignored and are not made aware they have the right to appeal. At times even the Information Commissioner’s Office itself gets ignored until matters are escalated and those concerned realize they must comply with the Law. By then quite often much valuable time and resources are wasted. This begs the question: is it the FOI Law that is a waste of time, or the fact that government (too often) ignores applicants and the Law?

The ICO needs the support of all public officials and private citizens to make the promise of the FOI Law, as unanimously passed in the Legislative Assembly in 2007, a reality and continue to move the government forward towards greater openness, transparency and accountability. I have often said that the more transparent government becomes, the less there will be a need for FOI. The only sensible way to make FOI less of a burden on government, is for government to release more information proactively and comply with already existing laws and record keeping rules without undue delay.

Jan Liebaers
Acting Information Commissioner

INVESTIGATION OF APPEALS
During this quarter, 9 new appeals were opened, 9 were closed and 1 progressed to a hearing for consideration by the Acting Information Commissioner, which is currently on hold while further mediation takes place.

The following appeals were closed without a formal hearing:

Appeal 014/14 – National Pensions Office
An applicant requested records relating to an email which was written by the Acting Superintendent of Pensions (SoP). The email referred to preparation for an Extraordinary General Meeting. The applicant was seeking records related to the preparation for that meeting.

The Pensions Office released records to the applicant and assured him that all the material related to his request had now been sent to him. The applicant was of the opinion that he did not receive all of the records he was seeking; he was specifically seeking a copy of legal advice that the SoP had received from its counsel.

During the appeal process it was determined that an email containing legal advice was released to the applicant, however, the applicant was skeptical that the email was all that existed in regards to the legal advice. Once the SoP confirmed in writing to the applicant that no further records existed, the applicant was satisfied and agreed not to pursue the matter further.

Appeal 015/14 – Ministry of Planning, Lands, Agriculture, Housing and Infrastructure
(PLAHI)
An applicant made a request to the Electrical Regulatory Authority (ERA) for records related to ERA directors and senior employees, namely information on their educational backgrounds and conflicts of interest.

The ERA attempted to transfer the request to the Cabinet Office and PLAHI as it felt those were the appropriate public authorities to respond to the request, however, both the Cabinet Office and PLAHI denied that they held the responsive records. The applicant then went to the Governor’s Office in the hopes that the Governor would be able to locate the sought after records. The Governor’s Office referred the applicant back to PLAHI who reassessed the request and determined that it did indeed hold some of the responsive records. These records were then released. However, the applicant believed that further records existed and appealed to the ICO.

Upon investigating the matter the ICO determined that the ERA (to whom the applicant originally sought access) actually did hold most of the records that the applicant was seeking. The ERA could not provide any explanation as to why it did not respond when it originally received the request other than to say it felt that other public authorities were better positioned to respond. This was found not to be the case.

After a number of communications between the ICO and the ERA the appropriate records were eventually released to the applicant.

Appeal 017/14 – Ministry of Education, Employment & Gender Affairs (MEEGA)
A reporter made a request for correspondence between staff at MEEGA and David Moore (the
consultant that completed a report related to schools in the Cayman Islands) between
September 2012 and August 2013.

MEEGA responded by refusing access to all of the records on the grounds that their release would prejudice a third party’s commercial interests and/or are an unreasonable disclosure of personal information. The reporter requested an internal review of the decision to withhold the records and the result was that 17 pages of emails were released. Some of the information had been redacted from the emails but that did not concern the reporter, who did, however, take issue with the small number of records which had been produced. The reporter appealed and the ICO investigated as to whether the Information Manager had conducted a reasonable search for records or not.

At first MEEGA affirmed that all of the records had been provided to the reporter, however, as more questions were asked, and moves to interview employees involved in the school report were made, a further 359 pages of records were indeed located.

MEEGA informed the ICO after the fact that the additional records were not produced earlier because of a protracted approval process created by Computer Services, which deals with requests for access to dormant email accounts, and appear to allow an employee to object to anyone accessing their email.

It should be noted that the ICO is currently discussing that CSD policy with the Deputy Governor and Computer Services, in order to ensure that it is brought in line with the FOI Law and that no further delays are encountered by Information Managers.

Appeal 002/15 – Department of Tourism (DoT)
A reporter requested meeting minutes from the Hotel Licensing Board. Some records were
released, however, others were withheld because the DoT felt they would reveal information of a commercial value and that value would be destroyed or diminished if the records were released. The applicant appealed this decision and the ICO looked into the matter.

As a result of a review of the records by the ICO, and an opinion of the validity of the decision to withhold some records provided to the DoT, more information was disclosed to the applicant. Some records were still withheld but after reviewing the newly released records the reporter felt that satisfied with the amount of information released.

Appeal 003/15 – Royal Cayman Islands Police Service (RCIPS)

An applicant requested records relating to various criminal and non-criminal conviction statistics for residents of the Cayman Islands in general as well as specifically for RCIPS members. The RCIPS released information related to the total number of people with convictions as well as the number of convictions related to Police Officers, however, other categories of information requested, such as the number of persons convicted of drug offences, were not provided.

The RCIPS stated that any further breakdown of criminal and non-criminal convictions was not possible because the database containing the information was not designed to produce such statistics.

The ICO attended the RCIPS offices, viewed the database’s capabilities and formed the opinion that production of the statistics as requested would unreasonably divert the RCIPS’ resources. The applicant was informed of the ICO’s opinion and agreed not to pursue the matter further.

Appeal 006/15 – Portfolio of the Civil Service (PoCS)
A reporter requested ten internal audit reports from PoCS. PoCS decided that two of the ten reports would be released but the remaining reports would be exempted for one year from their date of completion because PoCS believed that if they were released at the time of the request the disclosure would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The applicant did not agree with this response and appealed to the ICO.

The ICO met with PoCS and provided the opinion that the exemption relied upon had been inappropriately applied. As a result of the discussions, PoCS issued a new decision to the reporter, in which it outlined a new procedure related to the release of audit reports in general, which allowed for the release of all the requested audit reports except for one which is planned to be released within approximately forty-five days of the ICO’s discussions with PoCS. The applicant, while not totally satisfied with PoCS’ response, decided to wait the forty-five days rather than pursue the matter at a formal hearing before the Commissioner.

Appeal 007/15 – Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA)
An applicant requested access to the meeting minutes of all boards and committees under CIMA
from January 2010 to March 2015. CIMA withheld the records citing section 9(c) of the FOI law (responding to the request would unreasonably divert its resources) and section 50 of the CIMA law.

The premise for the appeal appeared to be based on the applicant’s opinion that the CIMA was not in compliance with their 2012 publication scheme, i.e. the applicant felt that the minutes of the committees and boards listed in its publication scheme should be publicly available. The ICO provided the applicant with the definition and basic requirements of the publication scheme under the FOI Law as well as clarifications regarding the obligations of a public authority to

develop a publication scheme. A publication scheme is primarily used to list the types of records the public authority holds, not necessarily the information it proactively provides to the public. The applicant was also given an opportunity to narrow the scope of the request and CIMA was prepared to review the request anew and provide access within the narrow limits of section
50(2) of CIMA’s Law.

The request was narrowed, however, it was the opinion of the ICO that the “narrowed” request was outside the scope of the initial FOI request and the applicant was asked to submit the new request directly to CIMA. The applicant did not respond to the ICO on this point.

Since no further response was received from the applicant the appeal file was closed and the applicant was advised accordingly.

Appeal 009/15 – Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP)
This appeal involved a similar set of circumstances to appeal 003/15, above, in that the requestor was seeking detailed statistics. In this case, the applicant sought the number of cases where the DPP accepted pleas to lesser charges than originally filed, left charges on file, offered no evidence at trial, did not proceed to trial after ruling that an accused be charged and accepted pleas of possession of drugs in circumstances where the accused was charged with possession with intent to supply. The timeframe for the requested information was 2012 to
2014.

The DPP responded by stating that it would not comply with the request because doing so would unreasonably divert its resources. The applicant appealed this decision and as a result the ICO sought clarification from the DPP as to why it would not comply with the request. The DPP provided a detailed response as to why it could not reasonably create the requested statistics and this explanation was passed on to the applicant. After considering the explanation the applicant agreed to abandon the request.

Appeal 010/15 – Her Majesty’s Prison Services
An applicant requested the following records from Her Majesty’s Prisons Services: Visitor’s Policy, Smoking Policy, Prisoner’s Classification Policy, weekly prisoner’s meals register, current education & vocational programs listing, past and current item list for contraband and approved hand-in item listing (from 2011 to current listing).

Prison Services did not respond at all to the request for records so, after the passage of a considerable period of time, the applicant had no choice but to appeal to the ICO.

During the appeal process, the public authority was apologetic and cooperative and provided the applicant with the majority of the requested records within a short period of time. The applicant was satisfied with the response and chose not to pursue the matter further.

HEARING OF APPEALS
New Hearings Commenced
Hearing 45-00000 – Governor’s Office
Following the judicial review of Decision 41-00000 in The Governor of the Cayman Islands v The Information Commissioner (Cause No.G0188 of 2014), Acting Justice Timothy Owen issued an Order, filed on 24 April 2015, in which he required the Commissioner to reconsider whether the requested records are exempt from disclosure by reason of section 16 (b) of the Freedom of Information Law, 2007 (the “FOI Law”).

The Judge also ordered that the Commissioner use such investigative powers pursuant to the FOI Law as considered necessary, and that for the purpose of reconsideration the Commissioner is to receive such written or oral submissions as the FOI Law permits, and which, consistent with that Law, the Commissioner considers necessary.

Hearing 45-00000 commenced on 14 May and the Governor’s Office was invited to provide its views in writing. A submission was received on 16 June 2015, and the ICO commenced its analysis and investigation.

Hearing 46-00914 – Ministry of Education, Employment and Gender Affairs
The appeal involved a refusal by the Ministry of Education, Employment and Gender Affairs to grant access to records relating to the proposed revision of the National Pensions Law, Investment Regulations.

At hearing the Commissioner will consider and decide whether the record is exempt from disclosure under sections 19(1)(a) and 20(1)(b) of the FOI Law; and whether the Information Manager made reasonable efforts to locate a record per regulation 6(1) of The Freedom of Information (General) Regulation, 2008.

Hearing Decision Issued
Decision 43-00814 – Legal Affairs, 10 April 2015
An Applicant made a request for the amounts of the settlement payments made to Messrs. Rudolph Dixon, Stuart Kernohan and Burmon Scott by the Government. The Portfolio of Legal Affairs refused access to the information on Mr. Kernohan on the basis of section 3(5)(a) which places records resulting from judicial functions outside the scope of the FOI Law, and withheld all three agreements pursuant to the exemptions in sections 17(b)(i) (actionable breach of confidence), 17(b)(ii) (contempt of court), 23(1) (personal information) and 20(1)(d) (effective conduct of public affairs).

In this Decision, the Acting Information Commissioner rejected the application of section 3(5)(a) to the Kernohan agreement since that agreement is separate from the Court Order itself, but upheld the decision of the Portfolio of Legal Affairs to exempt all three agreements on the basis

of the exemption in section 17(b)(i) as it would be an actionable breach of confidence to disclose them.

Since the Acting Commissioner found that the exemption in section 17(b)(i) applied, the other exemptions were not considered.

In examining the application of section 17(b)(i), the Acting Commissioner also made recommendations on the use of confidentiality clauses by Government. In the Decision Mr. Liebaers states, “public authorities should carefully consider whether confidentiality is necessary and appropriate before agreeing to sign an agreement containing a confidentiality clause, and should not use such clauses unless absolutely necessary, such as may be the case in the course of litigation.”

The full text of Decision 43 is available on the ICO website at www.infocomm.ky/appeals.

Release of Responsive Records
Decision 39-02513 – Department of Planning dated 3 March 2015
Records were released to the Applicant as ordered by the Acting Information Commissioner.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
Further to the Judicial Review of Decision 41-00000, The Governor of the Cayman Islands v The Information Commissioner (Cause No. G0188 of 2014), Acting Justice Timothy Owen issued an Order (16 March 2014), which was filed on 24 April 2015, which has already been discussed above.

GOVERNMENT FOI REQUESTS
Between April and June there were 70 Freedom of Information requests logged by Public Authorities in the central FOI tracking system. This is a 49% decrease compared to the same period in the previous financial year. During the same period 112 requests were closed. A total of 26 out of 90 public authorities received requests in this period.

MEETINGS AND PRESENTATIONS
The Acting Information Commissioner presented a current overview of FOI in the Cayman
Islands to the following boards:

 Health Services Authority, April 29th
 Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, May 7th

TRAINING & CONFERENCES
 The ICO continues to provide a brief introduction to the work of the office at the monthly Civil Service new hire orientation sessions and answers queries about the ICO and FOI in general.
 The Registrar of Hearings, Mrs. Nadira Lord, attended a Freedom of Information
Programme in London, April 20-23.
 The Acting Commissioner attended the International Conference of Information
Commissioners held in Santiago, Chile, April 20-24.
 The Acting Commissioner attended a course on “How to Exercise Statutory Powers
Properly”, led by Mr. Bili Simamba.

OUTREACH AND PROMOTION
The ICO continues to assist the public with various FOI-related queries which do not constitute appeals under the Law, and can range from helping someone formulate an FOI request, to informing an applicant of their rights under the Law and assisting a public authority to ensure that proper procedures are followed. While the ICO never comments on the appropriateness of how a public authority applies an exemption before an appeal is launched, assistance is provided on the processing of requests in compliance with the Law, and the general meaning of exemptions or exceptions. During this quarter the team logged 30 of these requests for assistance.

In addition, the ICO regularly provides media interviews, issues press releases and the ICO
newsletter and maintains a current website and Facebook page.

ADMINISTRATION
On April 1st the ICO welcomed Mrs. Charlene Roberts as our new Appeals & Compliance Analyst. Charlene joins us from the Ministry of Community Affairs, Youth and Sport and we are very pleased to have her on our team.