Section 16 Manual

Appendix 1: Screening of Applications

CHECKLIST 1. SCREENING OF APPLICATIONS - GENERAL

PART ONE

1. Is the public body within the remit of the Act?

Check

  • (First Schedule)
  • Schedule to Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924
  • Relevant Regulations

2. Is the decision in respect of which the application for review has been made one that falls within section 34(1) of the Act?

3. Has the requester availed of internal review? (Note: however, if in making its initial decision, the public body notified under section 29 then the requester does not go to internal review.)

4. Does the application for a review to the Office of the Information Commissioner relate entirely to a matter contained in the original request? [ If not, the instructions at paragraphs 4.10 to 4.15 on invalid reviews should be followed.]

5. Was the application to the Office of the Information Commissioner made:

Request to which section 9 or section 29 applies only

  • within two weeks of the decision
  • more than two weeks - applicants should be asked to provide grounds for the exercise of discretion to extend time (see Checklist 2 below).

Request other than a request to which sections 9 or 29 applies

  • within 6 months of the decision
  • more than 6 months after the decision [the instructions in paragraphs 4.16 to 4.25 on admission of late applications should be followed]

6. Does the applicant have proper standing?
- Is the person the original requester or some person acting on his/her behalf?

7. Does the applicant have other reviews - if so, this must be brought to the attention of the head of the support unit.

8. Are there grounds for considering that the application to the Commissioner is frivolous or vexatious? If so, the file should be referred to the head of the support unit.

9. Does the application to the Commissioner appear to relate to a matter which has been the subject of a review or will be the subject of another review? If so, the file should be brought to the attention of the head of the support unit.

10. Has the correct fee been paid /no fee due /non personal withdrawn/accepted for personal only? YES [ ] NO [ ]
(Highlight whichever is appropriate)

11. Is the case one in which the public body considered that section 26(1), 27(1) or 28(1) was relevant but at some stage in the decision making process formed the view that the public interest favoured release in accordance with section 26(3), 27(3) or 28(5)?

YES [ ] NO [ ]

(NOTE: where the ultimate decision was to refuse solely on grounds, other than sections 26,
27 and 28, it is not a decision on a request to which section 29 applies.

NOTE: this can include a case where the ultimate decision was to refuse - see Appendix 3 of
the OIC Section 16 Manual for further information on this)

If the answer to the above question is yes then proceed to Checklist 2.

Signed:

Grade:

Date:

PART TWO - Fees due under SI 264 of 2003

1. Do the records the subject of the request contain only personal information about the applicant and/or relate to a case to which section 28(6) applies? (personal information of a minor, disabled or deceased person made by certain categories of persons including a parent or guardian (in the case of a minor or disabled person) and a personal representative or next-of-kin (in the case of a deceased person)) YES [ ] NO [ ]

2. Does the application for review relate only to an application under section 17 (amendment of personal information) or section 18 (reasons for decisions)?

YES [ ] NO [ ]

3. Does the application for review relate only to a decision to charge a fee (including a fee under SI 264 of 2003)? YES [ ] NO [ ]

4. Does the application for review relate only to a case to which section 41 applies i.e. "deemed" refusal of the request or application YES [ ] NO [ ]

If the answer to any of these questions is YES, the application may be accepted for review provided it is valid in all other respects.

If the answer to all of these questions is NO, a fee is chargeable, proceed to question 5(i) to (iii) in order to calculate the fee.

5. (i) Is the applicant for review a third party under section 29 (see Question 10 above and Checklist 2) objecting to release of the records? If so, the fee chargeable is €50.

(ii) Is the applicant for review a medical card holder or the dependant of a medical card holder? (Note : if this is not clear, further information may be sought from the requester).

If so, is there any evidence to suggest that the request has been made on behalf of some other person who is seeking to avoid the payment of a fee? If not, the fee chargeable is €50.

(iii) In all other cases the fee chargeable is €150.

Has the correct fee been paid? YES [ ] NO [ ]

If the answer is NO and the correct fee has not been paid, a letter should issue to the requester seeking payment of the fee and the application cannot be accepted for review until that fee has been paid.

Signed: Signed:

Grade: Grade:

Date: Date:

CHECKLIST 2. SCREENING OF APPLICATIONS - DECISION ON A REQUEST TO WHICH SECTION 29 APPLIES

1. Was the application made to the Office of the Information Commissioner within 2 weeks of notification of the decision by the public body?

YES [ ] NO [ ]

If the answer is 'NO', applicant should be invited to inform the OIC of any particular grounds which the IC should take into consideration when deciding if this late application should be accepted.

(NOTE: if the application is from a requester in a case that went to internal review (see 3(b) below) then regard should be had to all the circumstances of the case to see if it is really a request to which section 29 applies - see "Cases which have gone to Internal Review", Appendix 3 of OIC section 16 Manual)

2. Is the applicant for review a relevant person? i.e. one of the following:

  • the requester [ ]
  • the person who supplied the information (section 26(1)) [ ]
  • the person to whom the information relates (sections 26(1),

27(1) or 28(1) ) [ ]

3. (a) Does the application for review relate to a decision made at initial decision stage?
YES [ ] NO [ ]

(b) If the answer to question 3(a) is NO, the case may still be accepted for review if

  • the initial decision was to refuse access [ ] and
  • no notification of third parties took place at initial
    decision stage [ ]

(c) If neither 3(a) nor 3(b) can be confirmed, the application
may still be accepted if it was made within 2 weeks of the initial decision .
- was the application for review to the Office of the Information
Commissioner made within two weeks of the initial decision? [ ]

4. To which of the following categories does the decision of the public body belong?

  • decision to refuse access to the records [ ]
  • - decision to grant access to the records [ ]

5. NB If the decision was to grant access to the records, confirm here that the public body has been contacted immediately, advised of the application for review and advised of the provisions of section 44 of the Act.

6. Check whether the public body notified the third party in relation to all the records which are the subject of the application to the Information Commissioner? [Where records were not subject to the notification procedure the normal internal review mechanism applies in relation to those records]

Back to contents