Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of Tusla. While he affirmed Tusla's decision to refuse access to the majority of the remaining information in the records on the basis of section 37 of the Act, he directed the release of some of the redacted information on the ground that section 37(1) did not apply.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of AGS to refuse the request under section 37(1) of the Act.

The Senior Investigator annulled ABP's decision and directed it to grant access to the record.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Council's decision. He found that the Council was not justified in refusing access to the 13 records that are deemed to fall within the scope of the applicant's request and directed their release.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the Department's decision.

The Senior Investigator affirmed the decision of the Department.

The Senior Investigator annulled the Council's purported decision on the requested records. She directed it to make a new decision on the matter in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act.

The Senior Investigator varied the decision of the Department. He found that it was not justified in refusing access, under sections 32(1)(a), 32(1)(b), or 37(1) to the names of judges who were appointed to and/or removed from the Special Criminal Courts and the specific Courts in which they hold or held office. He found that it was justified in refusing access, under section 37(1), to details of their dates of appointment and, where applicable, dates of, and reasons for, their removal.