- Skip Navigation |
- Sitemap |
- Accessibility Statement
- | Text Size: A |
- A |
- A
- About Us
- FOI Acts & Regulations
- Prescribed Public Bodies
- Make an FOI Request
- Review by the Commissioner
- Decisions of the Commissioner
- Court Judgments
- Publications
- Media and Speeches
- Reference
- Student Section
- Latest News
Lo-Call: 1890 223030
Fax: (01) 639 5674
Email: info@oic.ie
Section 16 Manual
4.22 Late 'section 29' applications
In cases where the applicant is an objector under section 29 it may be impractical to admit late applications because the public body may have already released the information. Where the applicant is the original requester, any attempt to admit a late application could be challenged by a third party objector. In such cases both the applicant and the public body should be informed in writing that the application cannot be accepted unless the Information Commissioner is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for doing so (see 4.19).
4.23 Before rejecting a late application by the original requester where it appears that the decision is on a request to which section 29 applies, it should be established that the request to the public body was, indeed, one to which that section applies. This will normally involve an examination of the public body's decision making file. The key concern here is whether the public body, prior to notifying a person to whom section 29(2) applies, had come to the view that the record was exempt by virtue of section 26(1), 27(1) or 28(1) but that by virtue of section 26(3), 27(3) or 28(5) it should be released because on balance the public interest was better served by doing so. Normally, Investigators should not seek to go behind a purported section 29 notification. However, where the evidence clearly indicates that the public body had already decided prior to the section 29 notification that some exemption (other than section 26, 27 or 28) applied to the record or had already concluded that the public interest would not, on balance, be better served by release, then the request should not be treated as one to which section 29 applies. In such cases, if the application for review concerns an initial decision made by the public body, then the application should be rejected as invalid. The requester should be invited to apply to the public body for internal review and, if necessary, the public body should be invited to consider the admission of a late application under section 14(7). If the application for review concerns a decision made on internal review then the application may be treated as valid and accepted if it is within the six months time limit. (See also Appendix 3)
