The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the principal of Scoil Choilm over access to a redacted inspection report on the school, holding that section 53 of the Education Act 1998 could protect information that enabled comparisons of schools’ academic performance.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Kearns on 30 May 2005, concerned a report completed on 30 July 2001 after an inspection in March of that year. The Information Commissioner had directed that redacted versions of reports on five schools, including Scoil Choilm, be released to The Irish Times. Personal information had been removed. The principal appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the High Court, which upheld it but stayed publication pending the Supreme Court appeal.
The Department of Education had argued that release could enable school league tables, contrary to section 53. The Supreme Court said that section’s general wording went beyond examination results and could cover other information about academic achievement, including descriptions of how pupils appeared to be doing in subjects or activities. The reports could provide a basis for comparing schools, and the information was not otherwise available to the general public. The Court concluded that section 53 overrode the relevant Freedom of Information Act provisions where the reports came within its protection, and allowed the appeal on that ground.
The Court dismissed the principal’s grounds concerning section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act, which addresses certain effects on public bodies’ functions and management. It agreed that the Department had not produced evidence sufficient to establish the claimed risk of non-cooperation by school staff, and upheld the Commissioner’s handling of the public-interest balance.
It also dismissed the confidentiality ground under section 26. The Court agreed with the lower court and Commissioner that the reports were prepared by departmental inspectors in carrying out their functions, and that their opinions and observations were not shown to have been imparted in circumstances creating a duty of confidence.
The judgment records that the High Court had stayed publication pending the appeal. It does not state a separate order in the supplied text directing what was to happen to the report after the Supreme Court’s ruling.