The High Court dismissed the National Maternity Hospital’s appeal against an Information Commissioner decision granting Parents for Justice access to some records about the Post Mortem Inquiry. The Commissioner had directed the Hospital to release certain documents in full, others in part, and upheld the refusal of access to some records. The court’s ruling concerned the legality of that decision; it did not itself order the release of documents.
The appeal was brought under section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1997, as amended. The Hospital argued, among other grounds, that the records were protected by exemptions relating to inquiries, legal professional privilege, confidentiality, deliberative processes, public functions and possible court proceedings. It also challenged the procedures used by the Commissioner.
The judgment found that the Post Mortem Inquiry had ended on 31 March 2005, before the Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner was entitled to assess the records in light of the circumstances when she made her decision, rather than only those that existed when the Hospital affirmed its refusal in January 2003. The court found no basis to interfere with her conclusion that the inquiry-related exemption did not apply.
The court also held that the Hospital had not identified records that were protected by legal professional privilege. It upheld the Commissioner’s approach to confidentiality and found no legal error in her conclusions under the other claimed exemptions. The Commissioner had considered whether records could identify patients or next of kin and directed that references to potentially identifiable people be removed from records otherwise to be released. The court found no legal error or irrationality in that approach.
The Hospital’s procedural challenge also failed. The judgment described the Commissioner’s review as inquisitorial rather than adversarial and found that the Hospital had opportunities to make submissions. The court said the Hospital had not established a legal error in the procedures used.
The company limited by guarantee named as notice party was incorporated after the original access request. The court found it was neither the requester nor a person affected by the Commissioner’s decision for the purposes of the appeal, and therefore lacked standing. It said the company’s participation had not affected the outcome. The appeal was dismissed.