Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez issued decisions on several PATI requests.
A spokesperson said, “On 15 December 2023, Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez issued Decision 48/2023, Cabinet Office, which considered the Cabinet Office’s failure to issue an internal review on a PATI request for records relating to BPMS Ltd., InnoFund Ltd. and the InnoFund Innovation Incubator, including two service agreements, a memorandum of understanding and the Premier’s correspondence.
“Commissioner Gutierrez found that the Cabinet Office did not issue an internal review decision to the Applicant within the 6-week timeline set out in the PATI Act. The Information Commissioner has ordered the Cabinet Office to issue an internal review decision by 2 February 2024.
“On 20 December, Commissioner Gutierrez issued Decisions 49/2023 and 50/2023, Cabinet Office, and then issued Decision 51/2023, Department of Child and Family Services, on 21 December 2023.
“In Decisions 49/2023 and 50/2023, the Applicant had made two requests for records of the Premier’s correspondence related to Gencom, its subsidiaries (in particular WestEnd Properties Limited), Gencom’s founder (Karim Alibhai) and Gencom’s representative (Chris Maybury). The Commissioner’s Decisions dealt with the Cabinet Office’s search on the same record topic for two different timeframes.
“In Decision 49/2023, the Commissioner considered records for the timeframe from 1 March 2021 and 5 October 2021. The Cabinet Office identified three responsive records and refused access to the records because disclosure could reasonably be expected to have an adverse effect on the commercial interests of Gencom, could prejudice ongoing negotiations related to the redevelopment of the Fairmont Southampton Hotel, could reveal information that was received in confidence and could have a serious adverse effect on Bermuda’s financial and economic interests.
“The Commissioner affirmed that the Cabinet Office was justified to withhold access to parts of the records because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice Gencom’s negotiations with lenders and the Bermuda Government. She did not find, however, that the Cabinet Office could deny access to the remaining parts of the records because they consisted only of administrative information. Further, the Information Commissioner found that the Cabinet Office had not conducted a reasonable search for the requests because she was unable to confirm the scope of the search that the Cabinet Office conducted to identify responsive records.
“As a result, the Commissioner ordered the Cabinet Office to do two things: disclose the parts of the records consisting of administrative information and to conduct a reasonable search and issue a new initial decision on any newly identified records by 7 February 2024.
“In Decision 50/2023, the Commissioner considered records that were responsive to the request for the period between 1 March 2020 and 1 March 2021. In response to the PATI request, the Cabinet Office disclosed a number of responsive records to the Applicant, advising the applicant that no further records existed.
“In her Decision, the Information Commissioner was not satisfied that the scope of the Cabinet Office’s search was adequate, as it was unclear if both of the official government email accounts used by the Premier were searched. As a result, the Commissioner has ordered the Cabinet Office to conduct a reasonable search and issue a new initial decision on any newly identified records by 7 February 2024.
“In Decision 51/2023, the Applicant had made a request asking for records about any disciplinary action taken against a senior officer of the Department of Child and Family Services. The Department denied access to five of the records because they contained personal information about the senior officer and denied access to one record because disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the deliberations of the Department.
“In Decision 51/2023, the Commissioner did not address the Department’s reliance on the exemption for the deliberations of a public authority as she found that all of the records consisted of personal information. The Commissioner also confirmed that disclosure of the records was not in the public interest under the PATI Act because it would be unfair to the senior officer. The senior officer had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to personnel matters, and there was no suggestion of irregularity or maladministration in the disciplinary process followed by the Department. The Commissioner found that the Department was justified in refusing access to the records under the exemption for personal information.”
The full version of Decision 48/2023 follows below [PDF here]:
The full version of Decision 49/2023 follows below [PDF here]:
The full version of Decision 50/2023 follows below [PDF here]:
The full version of Decision 51/2023 follows below [PDF here]:
Read More About
Category: All
