Department of Justice
Freedom of Information Team
Information Services Division
Block 4
Knockview Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3SL
Telephone 028 90378617
Email:xxx@xxxxxxxxxx.x.xxx.xxx. uk
Freedom of Information Team
10th October
2017
REFERENCE: FOI\17\68
Dear Madam,
Thank you for your request for information dated 16/08/17 and detailed below.
To ask the Department of Justice for copies of:
(a) All communications between DOJNI and the Office of the Independent Anti-
slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland.
(b) Agendas and minutes of any meetings between DOJNI and the Office of the
Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland.
From the date of the appointment of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner,
Kevin Hyland, in November 2014 to present date.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives you two rights of access when you write
to us asking for information. You have the right to know whether we hold the
information that you are looking for, and you have the right to have the information
given to you. These rights may only be overridden if the information you are looking
for is covered by an exemption in the Act.
Some of the information you have requested is covered by the following sections of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
i.
section 35 (1)(a) (formulation of Government Policy);
ii.
section 38 (1) (health and safety); and
iii.
section 40 (2) (personal information).
The names and contact details of junior officials are exempt from disclosure under
Section 40(2) – Personal Information, and Section 38 – Health and Safety, of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section 40(2) Absolute Exemption
The Data Protection Act 1998 prohibits the release of personal data and information
which relates to third parties which could, if released, identify the third party to whom
it relates. Disclosure of the names and contact details contained within the attached
e-mails would contravene the first and second principles of the Data Protection Act in
that the data would be processed unfairly and in a manner incompatible with the
original purpose. Further, none of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the Act are met to
authorise lawful disclosure.
There is an expectation that names of these officials would not be released publically
in connection with their work to protect their personal right to privacy. Furthermore,
in relation to officials who work for the Department of Justice, release of their names
and contact details into the public domain could result in them potentially perceiving
or receiving pressures, threats or intimidation because they work for the DOJ.
Release of this information would be unfair thus breaching the first principle of the
Data Protection Act.
Qualified Exemptions
The exemption provisions of sections 35(1)(a) and 38(1) confer a qualified
exemption to our duty under section 1(1)(b) of the Act – to release the information
requested. Information covered by qualified exemptions can only be withheld where
the public interest falls in favour of applying the exemptions.
We have provided details of our Public Interest Test considerations in Annex A to
this letter. The DOJ has decided that, on balance, the public interest in withholding
some of the information detailed above outweighs those considerations favouring the
release of that information.
In relation to part (b) of your question, we can confirm that we do not hold any record
of meetings held between the Department of Justice and the Office of the
Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner.
If you are unhappy with the result of your request for information you may request an
internal review within two calendar months of the date of this letter. If you request an
internal review please do so in writing stating the reasons to the address above.
If following an internal review you were to remain dissatisfied you may make a
complaint to the Information Commissioner and ask him to investigate whether the
DOJ has complied with the terms of the FOIA. You can write to the Information
Commissioner at:
Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
The Commissioner will not investigate a complaint unless an internal review
procedure has been carried out.
Further details on the role of the Information Commissioner and the handling of
appeals can be found at:
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk
If you wish to discuss this please contact the Freedom of Information Team using the
contact details provided at the top of the first page. Please remember to quote your
reference in any correspondence.
Yours sincerely
Freedom of Information Manager
ANNEX A
35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy).
In favour of release:
Disclosure prior to a decision being taken will lead to more informed public
debate.
Informs the public how policy decisions are reached, what options are being
considered, why some are excluded and others preferred.
Avoids the public view that their opinion does not count and that the decision.
was a foregone conclusion
May expose wrongdoing.
Where there is a large amount of public expenditure or deviation from routine
practices, there will be a strong public interest in disclosure.
In favour of non-disclosure:
Maintains private thinking space.
Future release may inhibit debate and the exploration of the full range of
policy options that ought to be considered.
The prospect of release may put policy makers in the position of having to
defend everything that has been raised during deliberation.
Disclosure could compromise future consultation and thwart the exchange of
ideas.
Releasing information relating to the development of some policies is likely to
prejudice such development and subsequent implementation.
Disclosure could allow targeted lobbying by certain groups that could inhibit
objective decisions being made.
Conclusion
We are satisfied that the section 35 policy formulation enforcement exemption
applies. The proposed policies will involve changes and could have an effect on the
general public, so the disclosure of the information at this stage may have an
adverse effect on the policy makers in that they would be less likely to provide full
and frank advice or opinions on policy proposals. For that reason, it is our view that
the public interest in protecting the policy making activities outweighs the public
interest in releasing the information.
38(1) (Health and Safety)
38 (1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under the FOI Act would, or
would likely to
(a)
endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b)
endanger the safety of any individual
In favour of release:
There is a general public interest in transparency and openness in how Government
works. The public may believe they have a right to know the names of any member
of the public who is mentioned in a public authority’s information.
In favour of non-disclosure:
Given the sensitive nature of some of the work carried out by the DOJ, some
individuals might or might be likely to be exposed to increased risk of targeting or
attack should their inclusion in DOJ information be made public. This risk of attack or
targeting could be increased depending on where an individual lives. There is a
strong public interest in avoiding harm to individuals and their families in relation to
this matter.
Conclusion
We have concluded that the public interest in withholding this information outweighs
the public interest in release as there is a strong argument in protecting individuals’
health and safety.