Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Survey - Federation of ...

110
In terms of specifi c exceptions, section 14 provides: “Offi cial information which may jeopardise the Royal
Institution shall not be disclosed.” This involves a form of harm test, but it is not clear what precisely would
be covered. In practice, secrecy regarding the Royal Family is very stringent indeed.
Section 15 provides for the following categories of exception:
information the disclosure of which would threaten national security, international relations or
national economic security;
information the disclosure of which would undermine law enforcement;
internal opinions or advice, but not background technical or factual reports upon which they are
based;
information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or security of any person;
personal information which would unreasonably encroach on privacy;
information already protected by law or provided in confi dence; and
any other information protected by Royal Decree.
These are, for the most part, categories of exceptions which are recognised in the right to information laws
of other countries. The two counter-examples are the exceptions in favour of the Royal Institution and the
power of the King to protect information by Royal Decree.
Appeals
Anyone who considers that a public body has failed to publish information, to make information available
or to provide information in response to a request may lodge a complaint with the Offi cial Information
Commission. This right is not applicable in certain cases, including where the public body has issued an
order declaring the information exempt or overriding the objections of a third party, or an order refusing
to correct personal data. These limitations seriously undermine the effectiveness of this type of complaint
as they mean that the Commissioner cannot probe into the application of an exception. However, a right
of appeal to the Information Disclosure Tribunal is available in such cases. The Commission must issue a
decision within 30 days, which can be extended for another 30 days upon notice to the applicant (section
13).
The Law provides for the establishment of an Offi cial Information Commission consisting of a number of
Permanent Secretaries, for example for defence, agriculture and commerce, and a Minister appointed by
the Prime Minister as chair, as well as 9 other members appointed by the Council of Ministers from the
public and private sectors (section 27). Members hold offi ce for 3 years, which may be renewed, and may
be removed for, among other things, being incompetent, acting improperly or having been imprisoned
(sections 29 and 30). This system fails to ensure the independence of the Commission, which largely
consists of public offi cials and is chaired by a minister.
The RTI Law sets out various procedural rules for the Commission regarding meetings (section 31).
The Commission has the power to require a public body to produce any information before it, as well as
to inspect the premises of any public body (sections 32 and 33). Failure to comply with an order of the
Commission in relation to summons or the production of information may lead to imprisonment for up to
three months and/or a fi ne (section 40). The powers of the Commission to resolve complaints, however,
are not clear from the Law.
Applicants and others may, within 15 days, appeal an order for non-disclosure or dismissing the objections
of a third party to the Information Disclosure Tribunal through the Commission (section 18). Various