The Irish Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the Information Commissioner that a man who was alleged to have had sexually abused his daughter was not entitled to records arising from the complaints made by his wife.
The man’s wife made complaints about the alleged abuse of the child, who was then four years old. The man was not told of the details of the allegations made against him other than that the child had said that he had touched her ‘back bottom and front bottom’. An investigation was conducted by a hospital child abuse unit, which found the allegation of abuse to be “unconfirmed”. The Eastern Health Board had notified the man of the allegations, however he refused to attend a meeting with the Board or the hospital as he did not receive guarantee of fair procedures.
The man sought to obtain records held by the Board on himself and the child. He claimed that there was a public interest in obtaining these records in the early stages so as to deter any false allegations of child abuse. The Board provided him with records which related only to himself – but did not give him access to records relating to the child or to both the child and the man. The man complained to the Information Commissioner, who held that the interest to protect the privacy of the child and mother prevailed over the interest to allow him access to the records.
Justice Michael Peart in the Court of Appeal looked at whether the Information Commissioner had correctly interpreted and applied section 28 of the Freedom of Information Act regarding the public interest. While the Court acknowledged that there is a public interest generally in openness and transparency, there is a distinction between “a real public interest served by providing access to certain requested documents, and the purely private interest of the appellant in having access to the documents requested” so that he might learn more about the allegations made against him.
The Court therefore found that the Commissioner correctly distinguished between the private interest of the appellant and the type of public interest that he is bound to weigh in the balance against the public interest in upholding the rights of privacy of the child and mother in this case.
Click here for the judgement in FP v The Information Commissioner and The Child and family Agency.