“Thirdly, for essentially the same reasons as discussed in relation to the public interest test above, the balance of rights and interests required by Article 6(1)(f) do not favour the disclosure of personal data in this context.” 124. We reviewed the evidence given by Mr Morris. On the question of identifiability he said that he agreed with the Appellant's proposition that UoE is “obliged to apply the minimal redaction that suffices to render the individual unidentifiable, whenever this can be done”. He added (para 72) that:“I can confirm that from my perspective, I agree with this principle but genuinely consider that this approach has been followed when considering redactions for the disclosure as part of the Response, as we sought to disclose as much as possible. It was, however, in many instances very difficult to protect individuals from reidentification by simply redacting their names or other personal identifiers.” and explained that:“71….when considering the information to be disclosed in response to the Request, we balanced the University’s FOIA obligations with its obligations under data protection law and other legal obligations of confidence, in particular noting the real likelihood that people can, and would, attempt to piece together information to identify individuals mentioned within it, and the harms that would result from such identification.” 125. He set out the process by which relevant redactions were made saying (para 73):“..we conducted a meticulous line-by-line analysis of the Report with a view to evaluating each and every redaction. In each instance involving personal data, we considered the likelihood of identification of an individual from those details alone, other details in the report and/or other information available to the requester, other interested parties, or the public” 126. In conducting this exercise UoE were focused on preventing motivated intruders from working out personal data from the material. He says:“In many cases, particularly involving current and former staff, students and alumni of the University, we were aware of the likelihood that individuals with tacit knowledge and understanding of members of the University community and the wider operation of the University would be able to identify others from materials within the Report. From the conversations I was having at the time, which have been discussed above, I was aware we were dealing with very “motivated intruders” and the removal of each redaction of potentially identifiable information had to be tested by myself and others at the University to consider whether that would give a 35