The High Court dismissed Harold J. Gannon’s appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision to refuse access to financial documents submitted in support of another person’s application for civil legal aid. The appeal was on a point of law under section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1997.
Gannon had asked the Legal Aid Board for records submitted by the applicant or the applicant’s representatives. He said the Board’s decision to grant legal aid had adversely affected his pending legal action and that he wanted to understand how it was reached. The Board refused access, and both its internal reviewer and the Information Commissioner upheld that refusal under section 26(1)(a), which covers information supplied in confidence where disclosure would likely prejudice the supply of similar information and continued supply is important to the public body.
During the court proceedings, Gannon narrowed his request to what he called “financial documents”. He argued that the records were not provided in confidence, that their release would not deter future applicants from supplying information, and that the Commissioner had applied the wrong standard. He also claimed that he had been denied fair procedures. He relied on the public interest in knowing how public funds are distributed.
Justice Quirke found there was adequate material for the Commissioner’s decision and that it was not irrational. The Commissioner had considered the Board’s evidence that the documents were supplied in confidence and the records themselves. The judge held that the Commissioner was entitled to find that the information had been provided on an understanding that it would be treated as confidential. The judge said the decision did not rest on solicitor-client privilege, although the solicitor-client relationship was taken into account.
The judge also upheld the Commissioner’s opinion that disclosure could discourage legal aid applicants from providing sensitive financial information needed to assess eligibility. On the public interest balance, the court recognised an interest in proper distribution of public funds, but found that the applicant’s privacy and the confidential character of the information also had to be respected. It would not interfere with the Commissioner’s conclusion that the public interest did not justify releasing the records.
Quirke J. rejected the fair-procedures claim, finding that the statutory review processes had been followed and Gannon had ample opportunity to make submissions. The appeal was dismissed. The court did not order disclosure of the records.