in the University’s submissions and Decision Notice, that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.” But in Section 7 of my Grounds of Appeal, I addressed in great detail all of those reasons — both those set out in the University’s submissions, and those set out in the Decision Notice — and I explained why they are grossly flawed. The Commissioner, by contrast, has completely ignored my arguments, and has simply repeated the claims of the Decision Notice without any further argument. I would humbly observe, once again, that an assertion does not become proven by mere repetition, and that an advocate does himself no credit by ignoring his opponent’s arguments.” 150. The IC in the DN concludes at para 37 (A8):- “The Commissioner has noted the complainant’s arguments but agrees with the University that the public interest favours maintaining the section 36(2)(c) exemption. First, he understands that, in the current case, the matter associated with the request was ‘live’ at the time of the request. He understands that the report had been published on 17 May 2021, shortly before the complainant’s request. As such the University was likely still to have been in the process of processing and managing its findings. It would then have to agree and implement the report’s associated recommendations. Second, the Commissioner has taken account of the nature of the information being withheld and the circumstances in which the University obtained the information. In the Commissioner’s view, at the time of the request there was greater public interest in the University being able to action the report’s recommendations effectively and efficiently, without the distraction likely to be generated through disclosing the information. In addition, the public interest in contributors to this 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, is greater than the public interest in the University being fully transparent and disclosing the withheld information in this case.” 151. Mr Morris says at paragraph 86 of his statement:- “I consider that the public interest arguments, both in favour of and against disclosure, identified in the Record of Public Interest Test remain as valid today as they did when put forward in response to the Request and the Internal Review Request. I believe that the wider public interest has been best served by the approach the University has adopted to voluntary publication of a redacted version of the Report, which has contributed substantially to public understanding and debate, whilst enabling the University to secure engagement with the Review (and implementation of actions post Report) through the commitment to confidentiality, protecting the contributors to the Review from the risk of harm and ensuring that the University is acting in an open and transparent way in relation to its failings as described in the Report. ….I am aware that the public interest balance is a matter 43