Decisions of the Information Commissioner

The Investigator annulled the Council’s decision. She found that it had not justified its effective reliance on section 15(1)(a). She directed the Council to carry out further searches and to make a fresh decision on the matter.

The Investigator found that the Medical Council was not justified in its decision to extend the period for consideration of the applicant's request.

The Investigator affirmed the Council's decision.

The Investigator annulled the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for consideration afresh.

The Investigator varied the Council's decision. He found that the Council was justified in refusing access to parts 1 and 3 of the request under section 15(1)(a) of the Act. He found that it was not justified in refusing access to further records sought at parts 4 and 5 of the applicant’s request and directed it to consider those parts of the applicant's request afresh. He affirmed the Council's decision to refuse access to six records under section 15(1)(i) of the Act.

The Investigator affirmed the Defence Forces' decision.

The Investigator varied the Department's decision. He annulled the Department's decision under section 15(1)(a) of the Act and directed it to carry out a fresh decision in relation to the request. The Investigator affirmed the Department's decision to refuse certain information under section 37(1) of the Act. He annulled it decision to refuse other information under section 37(1) and directed the release of this information.

The Investigator annulled the decision of the Department and directed it to make a fresh decision on the request.

The Investigator affirmed the decision of the HSE to refuse access to additional records under section 15(1)(a). She also affirmed its decision to refuse access to CCTV footage on the basis that it contained the personal information of third parties. She found that the public interest, on balance, did not favour its release.

The Investigator affirmed the HSA's decision. She found that the remaining details were exempt under section 30(1)(a) (prejudice to investigation procedures) and that the public interest did not weigh in favour of their release.