Privy Council Office (Re), 2024 OIC 26
The complainant alleged that the Privy Council Office (PCO) improperly withheld historical records from 1982-1983 regarding the Intelligence Advisory Committee under exemptions related to confidential information from government bodies and international affairs/national security. While PCO agreed to release some information during the investigation, the Information Commissioner found that the remaining withheld information did not meet the requirements for these exemptions. The Commissioner recommended disclosure, but PCO stated it would not implement the recommendation.
- Whether information concerning Liaison Officer titles was obtained in confidence under s.13(1) ATIA
- Whether disclosure of Liaison Officer titles, dissemination markings, CSE employee names, and report titles would cause harm under s.15(1) ATIA
- Whether PCO reasonably exercised its discretion to withhold information
- Whether PCO's stated reasons for withholding information were speculative and not supported by evidence of probable harm
Complaint well founded — disclosure recommended, but institution declined to implement
The Commissioner concluded that the Privy Council Office failed to demonstrate that the withheld information met the requirements of the exemptions cited under subsection 13(1) and subsection 15(1) of the Access to Information Act. The institution's justifications for withholding the information were found to be speculative and unsupported by evidence of probable harm, particularly given the age of the records and previous disclosures of similar information.
AI-generated summary for reference only. Always verify against the official decision ↗
The Commissioner recommended that the Privy Council Office disclose all records in their entirety, with the exception of the names of Liaison Officers from other allied countries, and provide a new response within 60 business days.
- s.13(1) ATIA
- s.15(1) ATIA
- paragraph 30(1)(a) ATIA
This is a summary of a decision and is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.