In the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) First Quarter Report 1 July – 30 Sept. 2012, Jennifer Dilbert, the Information Commissioner, notes:

“a worrying trend of increasing response times on the part of public authorities, and also the length of time that some appeals are taking to be investigated, resolved, and/or heard by the Commissioner.  These delays are caused by a number of factors including public authorities’ failure to properly identify and examine responsive records, involvement of legal counsel late in the process, and non- or delayed responsiveness to both applicants and the ICO resulting in non-adherence to agreed timetables for investigation and hearing.  The ICO is considering what changes are necessary to existing procedures in order to deal with these issues.

“Since inception of the Office, the ICO’s internal guidelines have continually been under review and amendment as the need occurs.  Due in part to the decreasing resources of the Office, and in part to the type, complexity and volume of appeals being received, the ICO’s internal policies and procedures covering intake, investigation and hearing of appeals are currently being updated.  The ICO welcomes input from those involved in the appeals process to ensure that the process remains effective, user-friendly and fair to all parties. Once the update has been completed public authorities and applicants involved in appeals will be provided with these new policies and guidelines as necessary.”

M/s Dilbert states that she has not experienced any political interference or problems with lack of independence but due to limited resources, her Office “has not been able to make further progress with organizational and legislative changes that would enable it to meet accepted international levels of independence.”

During the period 1 July to 30 September 2012, 1 new appeal was opened, 4 were closed, and 2 moved to a formal hearing before the Commissioner.  As at end September there were 5 pre-hearing investigations in progress.

The ICO continued to receive a growing number of requests from members of the public to assist with various FOI-related issues. Over the quarter 18 such requests were received, many of which involved several meetings or communications. These requests did not fall within the category of an “appeal“ under the Law, and could range from helping an applicant to formulate a freedom of information request to informing an applicant of their rights under the Law.  “Given the amount of time spent by staff on these requests, the ICO will consider whether the budget output measures should be adapted to reflect this activity.”

Three Hearings Commenced during this reporting period, and two Hearing Decisions were issued. There was one Release of Responsive Records.

No Judicial Review of any of the Commissioner’s Decisions were sought.

There were two Investigations – one commenced but was suspended and another was undertaken but has not been completed. It is ongoing.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Law, 2007 that the Law must be reviewed by a Committee of the Legislative Assembly this was executed and a Law Review Sub-Committee was formed chaired by the Attorney General. The Information Commissioner’s recommendations for the Law Review were submitted to this Committee in September 2010, and a position paper on the subject of and anonymity and fees was sent to the FOI Law Review Committee in January, 2011.

The report of the Law Review Committee was submitted to the Committee of the whole House, which has not yet convened to consider the report.

Most alarmingly, the FCO reports that, “on at least two occasions, it appears as if a public authority may have failed to identify and provide records responsive to a request.  The Commissioner reminds public authorities of section 55 of the FOI Law which states:

55.       (1)      A person commits an offence, if in relation to a record to which a right of access is conferred under this Law, he-

(a)      alters or defaces; (b)      blocks or erases; (c)       destroys; or

(d)      conceals,

the record with the intention of preventing its disclosure.

(2)      A  person  who  commits  an  offence  under  subsection  (1)  is  liable  on summary conviction to a fine of one hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and imprisonment.

“In addition, section 43(3) of the FOI Law states that in her decision on any appeal, the

Commissioner may –

(c) in cases of egregious or wilful failures to comply with an obligation under this Law, refer the matter to the appropriate disciplinary authority.

“The Commissioner will not hesitate to enforce these sections of the Law where necessary.”

The “Right to Know” campaign spanning 12^th September to 6^th October was very successful.

To see the whole Report please go to