Request for copy of Department’s launch video—request refused because of Department’s concern about potential for manipulation—s 9(2)(k)—request was for an analogue not a digital copy so the video could not be manipulated in the manner feared by the Department—no good reason to withhold—video released
A researcher requested a high quality copy of a video commissioned by the Chief Executive of the Department of Work and Income to launch the new department. The request was refused on two grounds; namely, that the request was for a digital copy of the video which could be manipulated, and, that the information might be manipulated in a way which disadvantaged the public image of the Department and its Chief Executive. Consideration was given to whether section 9(2)(k) of the OIA applied.
The researcher maintained that the request was for an analogue not a digital copy of the video. Accordingly, the video could not be manipulated in the manner feared by the Department. The researcher also explained that, while it was not necessary for the Department to know the reason for which the information was requested, the information would not be put to an ‘improper use’.
The Department advised that without knowing the researcher’s reasons for requesting the video it was unwilling to release it into the public arena. The Department also expressed concerns that the OIA did not permit it to clarify the intended use of the material. The Department explained that it had offered to show the video to the researcher but he had declined the offer. While the Department acknowledged that a copy of the video in the requested format could be produced, it did not accept that it should do so.
After considerable correspondence, the view was formed that there was no good reason in terms of the OIA to withhold the information contained in the video.
The Department accepted this view and said that a copy of the video would be released to the researcher. However, following receipt of the video the researcher advised that the video he had received had not been in the agreed format. He said the copy had been degraded by superimposing on the video image the words ‘RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT’. As this was not the format in which the Department had agreed to release the information, it was asked to ensure that it release a fresh copy of the video to the researcher immediately. This was done.
This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989 opens page in this tab. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.