The High Court upheld the refusal to release a social worker’s report about child-care proceedings under the Freedom of Information Act, finding that disclosure would constitute contempt of court. The appeal concerned the legality of the Information Commissioner’s decision, not the underlying care proceedings or the District Court’s handling of the report.
L.K. appealed under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act against the Commissioner’s decision of 25 September 2012, which affirmed the HSE’s refusal to provide a copy of the report. The report had been prepared for District Court proceedings concerning a supervision order for L.K.’s child.
A copy was provided to L.K. on 27 May 2009. On 26 August that year, the District Judge directed a Garda member in court to remove it from her possession. The judgment says the order followed submissions by the HSE’s solicitor that L.K. had confronted the child about the report and caused distress. Those assertions are recorded as the reason given for the order, not as findings made in this FOI appeal.
L.K. later sought the report from the HSE under FOI. The HSE refused, relying on the rule that child-care proceedings are held in camera and on the exemption for records whose disclosure would constitute contempt of court. The Information Commissioner affirmed that refusal. During the High Court appeal, the case was adjourned so L.K. and the HSE could apply to the District Court for access. The District Judge allowed L.K. to read the report but not to keep a copy, after which the High Court hearing resumed.
L.K. argued that the Child Care Act provided for copies of reports to be given to parties, that the report contained personal information about her and her child, and that she needed it for a possible appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. She also challenged the lawfulness of the District Judge’s order. The Commissioner’s representative submitted that the appeal was limited to whether the Commissioner had made an error of law in applying the FOI Act.
Justice Iseult O’Malley held that the Commissioner could not use FOI to override the in-camera rule or the District Court’s order, and had no power to decide that the order was wrong or that the claimed right to a copy prevailed. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the Commissioner was required to refuse disclosure under section 22(1)(b). It did not determine the merits of the child-care proceedings or the propriety of removing the copy; grievances about those matters had to be pursued through the court system’s ordinary channels.