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 editor and investigative journalist Maria Delaney.

See here for The Journal Investigates’ most recent investigations.

TRYING TO GET records through the Freedom of Information (FOI) process can be a pain. 

Though the FOI Act states you must receive a response within four weeks, this doesn’t always happen. 

There are diligent departments, councils, charities and other FOI bodies who follow the letter of the law, and without you having to send multiple reminders, email your desired records within the required time.

But the due date is more of a guideline for others. When there’s no sign of a decision, it is called a ‘deemed refusal’ and you are entitled to a free internal review. 

Another frustrating practice is the extension of the decision time – by up to four additional weeks. This significantly prolongs an already long process. 

FOI bodies have two strict criteria, under section 14 of the Act, when they can legitimately do this: either due to a large amount of records (fair enough) or numerous FOI requests for the same or similar records (often multiple journalists sourcing key records in the midst of a scandal). 

But time extensions can, in my experience, often be applied incorrectly.  

Suspiciously quick extension

One particular FOI of mine springs to mind. It was September 2021, and I was examining how the justice system treated young Travellers for a large investigative project. 

My aim was to find out how Travellers were discussed when devising the Youth Justice Strategy, so I asked the Department of Justice for relevant correspondence and memos.

With no explanation, and just three working days after emailing the request, the FOI office requested a time extension. This seemed suspiciously quick to me.  

When I asked why, I was told that “staff dealing with the request are currently working remotely… and as a result it will be difficult to access relevant paper files”. 

This was back in the time of Covid.

Though official advice stated that “arrangements must be put in place to ensure that requests continue to be processed to the greatest extent possible”, journalists were obviously more understanding of certain delays during this time, in particular during the upheaval at the start of the pandemic. 

My FOIs were often delayed for weeks – if not months – in 2020. And though I did follow up with decision makers, everyone understood that these were extraordinary times. 

But this was 18 months into the pandemic. Moving into the new normal.  

Appealing despite ‘no tangible benefit’ 

Extensions can be appealed to the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC). An internal review by the FOI body – normally required for OIC appeals – is not needed in this case.

But you have to submit your OIC appeal within two weeks of the public body extending the time (rather than the normal six months for FOI decisions). And if your request is not in relation to personal records, it will cost you €50 (or €15 for medical card holders).

Related Reads

The FOI Files: A meeting on motorway safety was held after the M9 crash. Why were no minutes taken?

The FOI Files: How one ‘wrong’ word led to the same request being refused twice

The FOI Files: How laws on family reunification were tweaked to make them more difficult to waive

Will this speed up your FOI? No.

I reviewed all 32 decisions available on the OIC site when you filter for ‘Section 14 – Extension of time’ before writing this article. All were made a couple of weeks or months later so “have no tangible benefit for the applicant” – a phrase investigators usually write in successful appeals.

But appealing will hopefully encourage the relevant public body not to apply extensions incorrectly going forward. 

So appeal I did. 

The Department of Justice argued my request took 1.5 days to process over the course of several weeks and required the examination of “in excess of 250 records”.  

A senior OIC investigator found “it difficult to accept” that this volume of records was “a sufficient ground for extending the period of consideration”.

They also said: “The time actually spent in processing the request (1.5 days) in no way supports the Department’s argument that a four-week extension was necessary.”

They cited previous appeals relating to the pandemic, including one FOI request to the Department of Justice from June 2020 – over a year before my FOI.

In that case, the investigator “found that the Department was not entitled to extend the period for processing a request due to logistical challenges arising from the pandemic”. He added:

As such, it is disappointing that I find myself having to address this argument yet again. 

The OIC found “the Department was not justified in its decision to apply the extension”.

Staffing pressures not a valid excuse

This is a common result of extension appeals. Of the 32 relevant decisions that appeared on the OIC site from 2019 to 2026, over 80% found in favour of the appellant. 

The Department of Justice appeared the most, with a decision to extend overturned six times and endorsed twice. 

In an appeal from last year, the department blamed “a significant increase in the number of requests” following the transfer of IPAS functions in May 2025. IPAS requests rose from 42 during the first four months of the year to 108 in the following four months. 

“The Department said that in an attempt to manage this volume, the Unit has relied on 14(1)(b) extensions to extend a number of the requests,” the OIC investigator wrote. That is when there are numerous FOI requests for the same or similar records.

The investigator did not agree, citing that there were “only three requests relating to similar information for County Limerick”.

High volumes of unrelated FOIs and staffing pressures were cited by many public bodies in their arguments to OIC investigators. Neither are valid reasons for extensions. 

When reading decisions in these cases, it is clear investigators are tired of these excuses. My case wasn’t the only one where they were left disappointed. 

When the Department of Agriculture said a 2022 extension was due to having a “large volume of FOI and AIE requests”, one investigator wrote: 

“It is very disappointing to note that the Department sought to extend the time-frame for the reasons cited in this case, given that it has been subject to the Act since 1998 and given that the language of section 14 is quite clear and specific in prescribing the circumstances in which an extension can be applied.”

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.