 as regards UoE’s argument that disclosure would lead to numerous avoidable time and cost consuming consequences he says:“Here the University simply recycles, once again, its claims that disclosure of the Report — with, as everyone agrees, names and identifying information redacted — would likely lead to “numerous time and cost consuming consequences”. These claims have already been refuted in in Sections 5.1–5.4, so I need not say any more.” 148. The Appellant refers to the PIBT regarding section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA (A106). He identifies three arguments made by UoE: As regards UoE referring to the public interest in protecting individuals he says “I agree completely. But how could anyone be victimised if all names and identifying information are carefully redacted (as I have specifically requested)? This argument is a red herring.”  On the importance of encouraging engagement with reviews he says:“...the University has utterly failed to explain in what way disclosure of the Facts and Evidence section of the Report — of course with names and identifying information redacted —“would discourage and reduce the quality and quantity of such inputs”. The alleged connection is a pure assertion, unsupported by any evidence or argument or by any indication of the alleged causal link.”  UoE he says, also asserts “a public interest in the University being able to take forward the actions agreed by its Senate and Council in response to the recommendations of the Review.” To this he says (A106):“Once again, as explained in detail in Section 6.1 above (“alleged chilling effect”), there is not one iota of evidence or argument as to why disclosure of the Facts and Evidence section of the Report would “have a chilling effect on this deliberation process and inhibit the University’s ability to make and influence changes, where identified, to its practices”, nor any indication of the alleged causal link. Quite the contrary, I have argued forcefully that making available additional relevant evidence would improve the quality of the deliberation process. Certainly the University has not provided any reason to believe otherwise” 149. He also says in his Reply of the 28 December 2022 (from A171) (again in summary):“The Commissioner, in his response, says (paragraph 30) that he “acknowledges the Appellant’s arguments concerning the envisaged prejudice in respect of s.36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c).” But he does not address (or even recount) those arguments at all, much less refute them. He simply repeats that he “considers, for the reasons set out 42