Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v. Information Commissioner

Factual and Procedural Background

On 26th September 1998, the Notice Party, referred to as Plaintiff, applied to the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 Section 7 for access to records, specifically the complete transcript and associated materials related to proceedings in a criminal case heard in the Circuit Criminal Court. The request was refused, and the Plaintiff sought an internal review, which upheld the refusal. Subsequently, on 22nd December 1998, the Plaintiff applied to the Information Commissioner for a review of the decision. The Information Commissioner granted access to certain documents including a typed transcript of the hearing, specified witness statements, and a statement of the Defendant with deletions. The decision of the Information Commissioner was made on 13th September 2000. The Plaintiff appealed this decision. The appeal concerned the proper construction and application of Section 46(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1997, particularly regarding records held by the courts and exceptions to disclosure.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Section 46(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 exempts records held by the courts relating to court proceedings from disclosure.
2. Whether the exception to Section 46(1), permitting disclosure of records relating to public proceedings not created by the court and not prohibited from disclosure, applies to the documents at issue.
3. Whether the shorthand notes and transcripts prepared by the official stenographer are records created by the court and thus exempt from disclosure.
4. Whether the compilation of witness statements and other documents into the Book of Evidence constitutes a record created by the Director of Public Prosecutions, falling under the exemption.
5. Whether access to two claims for payment of fees related to medical reports should be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined Section 46(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1997, which exempts records held by courts relating to court proceedings from disclosure, except for certain exceptions. The court interpreted "proceedings held in public" as referring to steps taken in an action that are public, rather than the court itself. The shorthand notes and transcripts prepared by the official stenographer were found to be created by the court, given the official stenographer's exclusive relationship with the court under the Rules of the Superior Courts. Consequently, these documents fall outside the disclosure exception and are subject to a general prohibition on disclosure under court rules, which the court affirmed as valid.

Regarding the Book of Evidence, which comprises witness statements and other documents compiled by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the court held that compiling these documents into a book constitutes the creation of a record under the Act's broad definition of "record." Therefore, these documents are exempt from disclosure as they are held or created by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

As to the two claims for payment of fees related to medical reports, the court found insufficient information to determine if these fell within the exemptions. The Information Commissioner had not been shown that refusal of access was justified, so the court upheld the Commissioner’s decision to grant access to these documents. However, the court noted that with additional information, these documents might be exempt.

Holding and Implications

The court discharged the decision of the Information Commissioner insofar as it granted access to the shorthand notes and transcripts, holding that these documents are records created by the court and their disclosure is prohibited by court rules.

The court substituted the decision with an order granting the Plaintiff access only to the two claims for payment of fees related to medical reports, as no justification was shown for refusing access to these documents.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff is denied access to the transcript and witness statements compiled by the court or Director of Public Prosecutions, except for the specified payment claims. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory provisions and court procedural rules.