Decisions List

Under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the decision of the Department. He affirmed the Department's decision to refuse the appellant's request for access to environmental information, but varied the reasons for refusal. He found that the Department was not justified in its decision that the information requested did not fall within the definition of "environmental information" set out in article 3(1). He found that the appellant's request does not relate to emissions into the environment for the purposes of article 10(1). The Commissioner found that the Department was partly justified in refusing to provide access to information on identifiable individuals recorded as owners or operators of peat extraction sites, on the basis that the exception under article 8(a)(i) applied to this information. He found that the Department was not justified in its decision that article 8(a)(i) applied to other information contained in the Peatlands Survey, to the extent that such information does not refer to identifiable individuals. He found that the Department was not justified in its decision that the exception under article 8(a)(ii) applied to the information requested. The Commissioner found that the exceptions under article 8(a)(iv) and 9(2)(d) do not apply in the present case. He found that article 9(1)(b) applies to the information requested, as disclosure of the information requested would adversely affect the course of justice. He found that the public interest in disclosure of the requested information did not outweigh the interests served by refusal under articles 8(a)(i) and 9(1)(b).

The Commissioner found that the Department was not justified in refusing access for the reasons given. He annulled the Department’s decision and required the Department to provide the appellant with access to certain information.

The Commissioner noted that the Department had provided the appellants with access to a large number of records, and he found that it was justified in refusing access to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner found that the Department was not justified in refusing access to certain information relating to correspondence between the Department and the European Commission and to certain records relating to tendering for works. Accordingly, he varied the Department’s decision and required it to make that information available to the appellants.

In accordance with article 12(5) and article 11(5)(a) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the contention by Mr Michael Neary, a property arbitrator appointed by the Reference Committee under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919, that he is not a public authority for the purposes of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner found that the property arbitrator falls within paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of "public authority" set out in paragraph 3(1) of the AIE Regulations, and is therefore a "public authority" for the purposes of the AIE Regulations. The Commissioner found that the property arbitrator does not fall within paragraph (c) of the definition. The Commissioner also considered whether the property arbitrator is excluded from the definition of "public authority" by virtue of article 3(2) of the AIE Regulations, as a person acting in a judicial capacity. The Commissioner found that article 3(2) does not apply to the Office of property arbitrator. The Commissioner stated that the property arbitrator should process the appellant's request in line with the AIE Regulations.

In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, the Commissioner reviewed the internal review decision of the Department. He found that the Department was justified in refusing access to the information sought in the first part of the request on the ground that it did not fall within the definition of environmental information set out in article 3(1) of the AIE Regulations. He found that the Department was justified in refusing the second part of the appellant's request on the ground that the exception under article 9(2)(b) applied, i.e. this part of the request remained formulated in too general a manner, notwithstanding the Department's invitation to the appellant to make a more specific request, as provided for under article 7(8). Accordingly, the Commissioner affirmed the Department's internal review decision in full.

The Commissioner found that the Council was justified in refusing to provide access to most of the requested information for the reasons given. He found that refusal to provide access to one letter was not justified. Accordingly, the Commissioner varied the Council’s decision and required it to provide access to that letter.