of assessment for the Tribunal, rather than of fact for a witness but I hope my comments on this point assist the tribunal with its assessment.” 152. As regards UoE’s position the DN in summary says (A7):- “For its part, the University has acknowledged the public interest in promoting transparency and accountability. This improves public understanding and awareness and, as a result, the public’s ability to engage in debate and decision making, on significant issues. The University also notes the specific public interest in the issues considered in the report, which concern issues of academic freedom and freedom of expression.” 153. The IC in its Response to the Appeal says (A135):- “b) The public interest favoured maintaining the exemption so as to enable the University to focus on implementing the report’s recommendations without the distraction likely to be generated as a result of further disclosure. Furthermore the public interest in contributors to the report being willing to work with the University to implement the report, and in potential contributors to future reviews being prepared to assist the University, outweighed the public interest in further transparency ([33]-[38])” 154. It also says when concluding that UoE struck the correct balance between disclosed and withheld information (A139):“The Commissioner acknowledges the Appellant’s arguments concerning the envisaged prejudice in respect of s.36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c). However the Commissioner considers, for the reasons set out in the University’s submissions and Decision Notice, that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.” “The Commissioner accepts that the University needed time to implement the report’s recommendations. Given the nature of the information being withheld, and the circumstances in which the information was obtained in the context of the underlying debate, there was a greater public interest in enabling the University to focus on actioning the recommendations without the distraction that would have likely been caused as a result of further disclosure. The Commissioner also accepts that there was a greater public interest in ensuring contributors to this report being willing to work with the University, as well as future contributors. The Commissioner also accepts that given the expectations of the contributors, and the sensitivity and profile of the underling issues and debates underpinning the report, the public interest favours non-disclosure and that disclosure would have been likely to prejudice the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberations 44