An important factor in this decision is also that the Commissioner considers there to be sufficient information already disclosed from the report to provide a reader with an understanding of the nature of the events and, most crucially, the author’s assessment of the events and recommendations. In the light of such disclosures the Commissioner particularly does not consider the public interest to favour disclosure of the remaining information given the Qualified Person’s reasonable opinion and the arguments presented in favour of non-disclosure” 155. UoE in its Response to the Appeal says (A186):- “As to the application of the public interest balancing test, the University submits that this is straightforward. If no part of the Report had been published, there would be a powerful argument from transparency, accountability and potential wrongdoing to favour publication of significant parts of it. But the University proactively published the Report. Although there are numerous redactions, large swathes of the Report are unredacted and – of the greatest significance – the University has not redacted (save for minor aspects within paragraphs) the findings made in the Report and the recommendations which result from those. It is the corporate failings identified on the part of the University in which there is the greatest public interest, and it is those matters which were placed in the public domain. The University can be, and has been, held to account by the press and the public, as well as its own community, for those failings and how it is going about addressing them. It is not disputed that disclosure of the redacted material in the Report would provide some further measure of transparency (although negligible in the case of various of the redactions). However, that further measure of transparency would: (a) add little if anything to the central and proper public debate to be had about the University’s compliance with its statutory duties and policies and procedures it has in place in relation to external speakers and freedom of speech on campus; (b) renew public attention on the actions and reactions of individuals rather than on the University, with the material risks attendant in this context; and (c) be likely to cause the various harms and prejudices identified, none of which are in the public interest and of which it is very strongly in the public interest to prevent. In all the circumstances, the University was right to conclude, and the DN right to accept, that section 36 was engaged and the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption." 156. We noted in the Bundle the content of a document called “Record of Public Interest Test” (AiG934 -941) which is dated 27 July 2021 and then “updated 9 September 2021, and 27 October 2021 (as part of the internal review)”. It considers the Request and the nature of the PIBT. It lists arguments in favour of disclosure (936) and (938) arguments in favour of maintaining the 45