The High Court has quashed a decision refusing access to records of Cabinet discussions on Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions, finding that the review decision did not show the required public interest balancing or give adequate reasons.
Right to Know CLG sought “all documents which show cabinet discussions on Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions from 2002 to 2016” under environmental information rules. An Taoiseach’s department identified 31 relevant records but withheld them, citing Cabinet confidentiality under Articles 8(b) and 10(2) of the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations. An internal review affirmed that refusal on 27 June 2016.
In judicial review proceedings, the organisation argued that the refusal was incompatible with EU environmental information law and that the decision-maker had failed to explain the decision, weigh the public interest in disclosure against confidentiality, or consider releasing parts of the records.
Justice Faherty upheld an earlier High Court conclusion that Cabinet discussions are “internal communications” under the EU directive, rather than “proceedings of public authorities”. She also found no basis to depart from the earlier court’s conclusion that the Regulations’ Cabinet confidentiality provision could have a basis in the directive’s exception for internal communications.
But that did not remove the decision-maker’s duties under the Regulations. The court said each request must be considered individually, refusal grounds interpreted restrictively, and the public interest in disclosure weighed against the interest in refusal. The authority must also consider whether information can be released in part.
The review decision said it had considered the relevant documents and affirmed the refusal. The court found that neither the decision nor the reviewing official’s affidavit showed that the required balancing exercise or consideration of partial disclosure had taken place. Cabinet confidentiality alone could not decide the request. The High Court also held that the statutory ground for refusal, without an explanation of why refusal was justified, was not an adequate reason.
The court rejected the organisation’s challenge to the review decision on the basis that EU law required the decision-maker to disapply national rules. It nevertheless found the challenge made out because the refusal did not comply with the required procedures and obligations.
Justice Faherty ordered certiorari, quashing the first respondent’s review decision, and remitted the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the State’s EU obligations. She did not decide the request herself or order release of any records. The court said it would hear submissions on what declaratory orders, if any, should follow. In a postscript, the judge said that if the decision-maker concludes on reconsideration that the requested records do not concern emissions into the environment, reasons must be given for that conclusion.