that it would invariably be the case that the more people that take part in such
investigations providing their view and sharing at times personal thoughts with
confidence the more instructive the outcome and recommendations- which is
clearly in the public interest.
the need for UoE to be able to focus on its core activity and deploy its resources
accordingly
164. UoE also put forward (see the DN page A8) the argument that the
exemption should be maintained because:“Reputational damage arising from events would be likely to affect the ability of the
University to attract and retain both the best staff and the right numbers of
students to allow it to maintain its growth and its contribution to the local
community and wider society.”
165.
We noted but gave no weight to this argument because:-
(a) it appears to suggest that a public authority may wish to withhold
information if disclosure might cause reputational damage and thus be likely
to prejudice the conduct of public affairs. However if there has been
reputational damage it might equally be said that in the right circumstances
additional disclosure (while embarrassing in the short term) would, be likely to
enhance reputations and assist in the conduct of public affairs.
(b) there was so much already in the public domain by the time of the
Response that it is unlikely in our view that this potential outcome would have
been as damaging as described.
166. The positive reasons for disclosure are in our view reduced in weight
because:
of the publication of the Report as it is.
of the ability to read with clarity the recommendations in particular.
of the Report’s status as a report on an investigation and not the result of an
academic study.
fewer redactions would not have added much to the usefulness of the work
carried out by Akua Reindorf KC and the Report itself.
167. In our view, having considered the reasons for disclosure and for
maintaining the exemption and having considered the weight of the
arguments, the balance is in favour of maintenance.
48