letter from justice to d/per dated 2012-03-08

8/19/2019 Letter from Justice to D/PER dated 2012-03-08

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/letter-from-justice-to-dper-dated-2012-03-08 1/4

IRISH NATURALISATION AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE (INIS)SEIRBHlS EADOIRSEACHTA AGUS INIMIRCE Na HE1REANN

Department of Public Expenditure and ReformUpper Merrion StreetDublin 2.

M< J

Att: Mr. William Beausang " . ^'^ As

AKr ^ c .

FOI - matters for consideration if extended to ORAC7& RAT

Dear William. f t r ° * \ a . a J

vJcs *

°u \ > °

r v ^ UUL >r

I refer to our meeting on Friday last in relation to the above when I indicated I would set-outin further detail the issues regarding the extension of the Act as now proposed.

■

; T v V . ’ , v* * ' " T * . ’ •

' - • • • ' • ' ’ •' • - * ; • • : * * ....

- v * • ; v - - ‘ * • ' • - . ',s, . v * ^ .



>vV\ • - 1 *' , • “r ̂ Vi «• V ̂ "■ —

f

ft - * •

* ' " __________

*£&''' ' a \ in «u ~ w r z « z ~ ^ r .

:;t '̂ ^^^S’r “ ~ “ w’ ' V ;' ‘ '" . ' c •.*,* ̂;- 4^- •; • ^rgtmtott ̂S f c m.

As provided for in the UK law it is considered that a specific provision should be made fothis in our law. The nature o f the work o f the ORAC and RAT is that information held

•• • • # •

could potentially be used for purposes such as circumventing the immigration process and

thus undermine the integrity of the State’s immigration process. In order to maintain thisintegrity it is considered that specific legal provision be made for this.



J. Retrospective nature of the Act.

Jhis is regarded as having potential to disrupt processing times both in the ORAC andRAT. Retrospection to 1998 or the commencement date of the organisations concerned(November 2000) creates a situation where large numbers of requests could be made for

policy and guideline type documents going back in time. Such documents were created ata time when the organisations in question were outside of the scope of the Act. Onewould have to query the balance between the public interest right against the effortinvolved in retrieval of effectively what are now historic records. The UK experience isthat documents once released are distributed widely via the internet and could in ourview, be used to undermine the integrity of the asylum process by persons seeking toconstruct asylum claims in such a manner as to get around procedural frameworks set outin the guidelines/ guidance notes etc.

Perhaps of even greater concern if retrospectivity is applied is the potential for requestsfor information relating to decisions on whole ranges or categories of cases taken over a

period of years. It should be noted that there have been over 70,000 asylum applications

in the period involved. While the personal information on these could be redacted, theircontent could be used to circumvent immigration / asylum policy e.g. to formulate anapplication that might have a better chance of being granted based on the informationobtained rather than on the true facts of the individual’s application. I should also mentionthat the redaction process involved in an exercise such as this, which would be required inorder to guarantee the confidentiality of asylum applications under section 19 of theRefugee Act 1996, would be a substantial logistical exercise and, depending on the natureof the FOI request, could have serious repercussions for the functioning o f the overall

process.

Perhaps the provision suggested at 2. above could be drafted to encompass such anexclusion. It is understood that the UKB A refuse to release requests for previousdecisions on cases even if redacted.



iI

t

II

PO INIS Shared Servicesi „ J -

^ March, 2012

• # • • • • •• • • • • • • ••

letter from justice to d/per dated 2012-03-08

Documents