Section 9(2)(a) OIA did not apply—many of the names were publicly available—seniority—degree of responsibility—public facing nature of the role—public interest in transparency and accountability requires disclosure at this level.
A requester sought a complete list of all fire service officers, and complained to the Ombudsman when this was refused on privacy grounds. He refined his request to the names of the ‘officers-in-charge’ of all fire stations. The Ombudsman formed the opinion that there was no good reason to withhold this information.
Section 9(2)(a) of the OIA applies if withholding is ‘necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons’.
The name of the ‘officer-in-charge’ of a station or brigade is the sort of information that is generally (though not universally) made available on the Fire Service website. This is an acknowledgement of the ‘public-facing’ nature of the role. Expectations of privacy for the front-person of a station would necessarily be low because of the custom of publication and because of the public interface inherent in the role. This would be so regardless of whether that front-person was a career or a volunteer fire officer.
Even if withholding had been necessary on privacy grounds, there would be a strong public interest in the transparency and accountability of the identity of individuals occupying these roles. The publication of this information by the Fire Service in respect of most of the stations is, in large part, an acknowledgement of this public interest.
The Fire Service accepted the Ombudsman’s opinion and released the information.
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.