us partially unredacted copies of the report. The one supplied to Jo Phoenix shows all relevant references to her and likewise the one shown to Rosa Freedman. We both know what the unredacted information is.” 135. It may be that UoE and Professors Phoenix and Freedman have been or will be in direct contact and that if appropriate consent is forthcoming UoE will decide to reissue the Report with the redactions specifically relating to their personal data removed. That is not a matter for this Appeal and we accept the submission of UoE and the IC that this consent was not in existence as at the date of the Refusal. Further in our view consent, even if given, provides a lawful basis for publication but does not compel it. Tribunal Review – Section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) - Review The QP 136. The QP for UoE by section 36(5)(o) FOIA was the VC. Professor Anthony Forster was appointed VC of UoE in 2012 and was the QP in respect of these matters. What was the QPO? 137. We have seen a copy of the QPO (pages G920 to G933) and the supporting documents in section G of the Bundle. We note it appears to be signed by Professor Forster and is dated “23 June 2021,updated 27 July 2021 and 8 September 2021”. 138. From pages G930 -932 we noted that the QPO was that if the information requested were to be disclosed the prejudice/inhibition at section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA or section 36(2)(c) FOIA would be likely to occur. Was the QPO reasonable? 139. We have considered this question on the basis of the Decision in Malnick and having noted the lower evidential threshold needed where the QPO is that the prejudice “would be likely etc..” 140. We noted the Appellant's submissions including on page 7 of his skeleton argument of 2 October 2023 where he said:“Within this, I stressed the mandatory nature of the requirement (b) for specifying a plausible causal link, without which the QP’s opinion is ipso facto not reasonable: see pp. 20–21 of App28Dec2022.” 39