The High Court dismissed the Health Service Executive’s appeal against an Information Commissioner decision directing disclosure of additional records from a social work file concerning a child welfare inquiry. The appeal was on a point of law under the Freedom of Information Act 1997. The court held that the Commissioner committed no error of law; it did not itself order disclosure of particular records.
The inquiry began after an anonymous caller reported a suspicion of physical abuse and neglect at home. The HSE contacted the child’s mother, who consented to contact with her GP and the child’s school. A social worker interviewed four teachers. The HSE later found no grounds for concern, described the allegations as unfounded and closed the inquiry.
The mother sought access to her personal records in May 2005, including with a view to identifying the caller and considering legal proceedings. The HSE granted partial access and withheld some records and passages. On 27 March 2007, the Information Commissioner upheld some withholdings but directed the HSE to release additional information. The HSE appealed, arguing that the Commissioner had misinterpreted the Act’s exemptions for confidential information and personal information.
On confidentiality, the court found that notes recording what teachers told the social worker were records prepared by HSE staff in the course of their work. The court said the notes were not verbatim transcriptions: they involved selection and paraphrase. It concluded that the statutory exception for internal records applied, and that disclosure was not barred by a legal duty of confidence owed to the teachers. The court therefore did not need to decide the HSE’s separate arguments under another part of the confidentiality exemption.
On personal information, the Commissioner had directed disclosure of names, employment addresses, job titles and a school’s fixed line number, while preserving the exemption for mobile numbers. The court said the Act’s public availability provision should be considered before deciding whether information is personal. It observed that the listed work details and fixed line number appeared to be publicly available, while the mobile numbers were not; the Commissioner had found those mobile numbers to be personal information and withheld them.
Although the Commissioner had not referred to the public availability provision in her reasoning, the court concluded that any flaw was in the reasoning process and would not have changed the outcome. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the Commissioner’s determination in place.