“95...What the Commissioner also considers is the wider public interest in preserving the principle of confidentiality and the need to protect the relationship of trust between confider and confidant. In this case, he considers there is stronger public interest in people feeling confident to participate in a review such as the review in this case, so that the review is thorough, balanced and fair. Individuals will be more prepared to do this if they are satisfied that the University will treat the information they provide confidentially. A report is more likely to be viewed as credible, and its recommendations acted on if it is perceived as having fully reflected and taken account of the views and experiences of all those involved, or as many as possible.” 87. The IC’s conclusion (para 98) was:“The Commissioner has considered all the circumstances of this case and the nature of the information being withheld under section 41(1). He has concluded that there is stronger public interest in maintaining the obligation of confidence than in disclosing the information being withheld under this exemption. Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the condition under section 41(1)(b) is also met and that the University is entitled to withhold information in the report under section 41(1) of FOIA.” 88. Our conclusion from all the evidence and submissions is that UoE did obtain the information from another person/persons. 89. As regards whether disclosure would constitute an action for breach of confidence by the confider by reference to Derry we reviewed in particular the Appellant’s submissions in the GoA from page A61 to A76. We noted his submissions on the necessary quality of confidence and obligation of confidence (A72). We considered the conclusion from page A73. We noted in his final observations (A74) his view that:“Last but not least, there is a strong reason to doubt that Section 41 could validly apply to anything in this Report. Indeed, were the public disclosure of any part of this Report to constitute an actionable breach of confidence, then that confidence would already have been breached (and actionably so) by the disclosure of this Report to an unknown number of people inside the University of Essex.” 90. We also had regard to the witness statement of Mr Morris. (H1018) is as follows from paragraph 83:- His evidence “The information provided to Akua Reindorf by individuals interviewed in the course of the Review was given under explicit assurances of confidentiality. As noted above, this assurance was first given when contributions to the Review were invited in my Blog, and the confidential nature of submissions was reflected throughout. 24