Noel Baker
The FOI Files is a brand-new series from our team at The Journal Investigates. Each week, one of our investigative journalists brings you inside the fight for information that we’re all entitled to. They’ll share their documents, their stories – and tips on how to take the journey for yourself.
This week’s file is from TJI’s acting editor Noel Baker.
IT SEEMED LIKE a great story at the time.
Having written on and off for years on various aspects of the Direct Provision system, I was intrigued to discover that there was a type of internal hotline open to operators of International Protection Accommodation Services (IPAS).
As someone who likes a well-aimed Freedom of Information request, this seemed like a no-brainer, as well as a potential new angle on an aspect of the DP system that maybe hadn’t been explored before.
After all, the DP system has come under increasing pressure from various angles. Firstly, the number of people being accommodated has soared in recent years, which in turn created a need for additional bed capacity. As recently as December 2021, there were 7,244 people in IPAS; by the middle of April this year that figure was 33,229.
And with that came increasingly pointed protests at various locations around the country, and more worryingly, suspected arson attacks on accommodation earmarked for IPAS – and in some cases, buildings simply rumoured to be.
My initial FOI request was batted back on the basis that I was seeking data for too lengthy a period. Following some helpful correspondence, I settled on two months of records – the same two months that not only saw the serious disturbances outside the Citywest facility last October, but also coincided with the appalling arson attack on a centre in Drogheda.
Then the waiting game began.
At this stage, it should be pointed out that the FOI unit in the Department of Justice is extremely helpful and very accommodating. But such is the huge volume of FOI requests it receives, it means you are unlikely to receive a response to your request within the statutory time window. It seems a huge number of people want information on the asylum system, and the delays have followed the issue around even as it has moved from the Department of Justice, to the Department of Children, and back again.
For me, this was fine, as there was an understanding that since I was seeking a record that had not been previously released, I might have to wait a while.
I also expected a level of redaction, and I was also made aware that a separate but different incident log was also available and had been sought and provided via FOI on numerous occasions. So helpful was the FOI officer that I was provided with some recent logs – all of which whetted my appetite:
But as for my FOI request, what came through was less a banquet and more a soggy biscuit.
The released file was redacted to an enormous extent, so much so that it was easier to pick out the occasional sentences that were not blacked out, sometimes hinting at something that might have made a story, but was still nowhere near doing so.
There was a reason for all this.
There are various factors as to why an FOI request might be refused, in whole or in part, but Section 2; Section 31 (1) and (2); Law enforcement and public safety Section 32 (1), is hard to argue with.
“On balance, the Decision Maker believes that the public interest against release outweighs the public interest for release," it said.
"A number of concerning incidents involving the centres we utilise, our officers and others involved in the international protection accommodation process has led to the decision maker redacting the names of persons involved the work of the IPID [International Protection] Division in order to protect their safety.
"It is also the belief of the decision maker, that releasing certain details contained in these records could impede an ongoing investigation by An Garda Siochana which would not be in the public interest.”
It included a public interest ledger that read as follows:
For release
• Openness and transparency
• Accountability of public bodies
• Information will contribute to public debate on the matter
• Records will demonstrate the thinking behind the decision
Against release
• Release of the records would facilitate the commission of an offence
• Impact upon an ongoing investigation
• Vital interests of the community are best serviced by not releasing the record
And that's that. Three men were subsequently charged in connection with the incident in Drogheda, one of whom has pleaded guilty.
Maybe some of you have a better idea as to wording, or an alternative approach? Feel free to let me know in the comments or email me directly at the byline at the bottom of this article.
Or - as you will learn through future episodes of The FOI Files is a common motif - maybe I just have to wait a little longer.
The Journal Investigates team will be back with another installment of the The FOI Files next Tuesday.