 (para 87) the circumstances did impart an obligation of confidence noting for example the IC’s view that:a. the subject of the Report was sensitive b. a blog dated 28 August 2020 stated “All feedback will be kept confidentially, and the names of identifiable contributors or others named not disclosed, unless required to do so by law”. c. that “the individuals who were interviewed as part of the independent review would have had the reasonable expectation that the information they were providing would not be disclosed to the world at large in response to a request under FOIA.” d. that “it would have been reasonable for those individuals to assume that the University would treat the information confidentially”. e. that “through engaging with the report’s author, individuals provided the University with the information in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.”  (para 89) disclosure would be contrary to the confiders reasonable expectations of confidentiality being maintained as regards their private information and that therefore disclosure would cause detriment. 84. The IC (A17) set out in the DN its review and conclusion on whether UoE would have had a public interest defence. Arguments for included: the general public interest in public authorities being open and transparent  the significant public interest in the relevant events and the wider context  the public interest in academic freedom and freedom of expression 85. Arguments against cited by the IC included that: a redacted version had been published and the public interest could be satisfied by that publication and the steps UoE had taken  UoE had been open about the issues, had made a self report to the Office for Students, had issued statements and given apologies and that UoE took the view that providing the withheld material would not add anything 86. The IC said (A18):- 23