Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.

An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.

The FOI Files is a 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.

See here for The Journal Investigates’ most recent investigations.

AS IN LIFE, when it comes to Freedom of Information requests, timing can be everything.

Without wishing to go into too much detail, I recently submitted an FOI request looking to gather information on a certain topic, and covering a certain timeframe.

This went to a number of different bodies, as they are all involved in this particular sector.

But whereas one body refused it on the basis that the records were not there, a chat with the decision maker allowed for a situation where the data could be gathered. However, another body refused, and for a very particular reason.

The refusal was under Section 15(1)(e) of the Freedom of Information Act 2014, which states that “publication of the record is required by law and is intended to be effected not later than 12 weeks after the receipt of the request by the head.”

In the words of the decision maker, a report “is currently being finalised with data being scrutinised.

“To provide the report currently whilst in draft form and unfinalised could lead to misleading and incorrect information being placed in the public domain.

“It is anticipated that publication of the record will take place in the coming weeks and the [relevant body] can provide a copy on the date of publication.”

What’s more, the next part of the relevant section also gives another time-related reason for refusal: “(f) the FOI body intends to publish the record and such publication is intended to be effected not later than 6 weeks after the receipt of the request by the head”.

To which the only adequate response might be “Groan”. It could be argued that, if I ask for certain records four or eight months ahead of publication of any type of formal report which might contain the same or similar data, then I’m good to go; yet if I ask for the same data on the eve of publication of such a report – when it’s basically all been checked and double-checked – then I can’t get it.

Is this a little inconsistent? That said, I do completely understand the requirement for state bodies to issue reports – in fact, it’s absolutely vital that these and other bodies outline the work they have done, the issues they have faced, the challenges that might arise in the future, and so on.

It could also be argued that publication of annual reports and the like don’t always follow a regular pattern. I recall a time when annual reports for a particular year for certain state agencies would, in some cases, emerge a full two years later.

I queried this with the body in question and received a very comprehensive response from a press officer, who reassured me they were not in the business of using FOI to frustrate journalists – or anybody else for that matter.

Ultimately, I was able to get the information in a timely manner, so happy faces all round. Maybe just check the calendar the next time you’re sending off your own FOI.

You may recall my recent piece about how the Department of Foreign Affairs refused my FOI request on records relating to Irish diplomatic staff and parking fines.

As I outlined at the time, I did appeal that decision, but it too failed to break the diplomatic impasse.

The appeal was refused, and for similar reasons, namely that the release of such records could “reasonably be expected to affect adversely the international relations of the state by introducing doubts about the ability of the State to maintain confidential diplomatic communications between our mission network and their host States.”

The decision maker also highlighted the “small number of officers” at Irish missions overseas and therefore a possibility of someone being identified.

That said, the decision maker added: “I can however advise that the instances occurred relate to officers assigned to missions in Asia and in the EU.”

Narrowing it down to just the two continents might not seem like a big deal but according to my esteemed colleague, Conor O’Carroll, “That’s actually really interesting and I’d even say it’s a win.”

Why? Because an internal review actually ending up with new information, no matter how small, maybe isn’t that common.

Pass the Ferrero Rocher.

If you have a burning FOI question about how to get certain records or why your request was refused, you can get in touch with our team at investigates@thejournal.ie. The Journal Investigates team will be back with another instalment of The FOI Files next Tuesday.

To embed this post, copy the code below on your site