The FOI Files: How one ‘wrong’ word led to the same request being refused twice

The FOI Files is a series from our team at The Journal Investigates. Each week, one of our investigative journalists brings you inside the fight for information that we’re all entitled to.

They’ll share their documents, their stories – and tips on how to take the journey for yourself. This week’s file is from investigative journalist Patricia Devlin. See here for The Journal Investigates’ most recent investigations.

DID YOU KNOW that using the ‘wrong’  word in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request can be enough for a public body to refuse it?

That is what happened to wildlife campaigner Ruairí Ó Leocháin when he asked the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) for records about a tender connected to the capture of badgers.

The department refused his request not once, but twice – even after the Information Commissioner overturned its first decision.

The problem was one word – “snaring”.

DAFM insisted the devices it uses to capture badgers are not snares, but “stopped body restraints”.

It therefore claimed that records concerning the “snaring of badgers” did not exist. Yet correspondence released during the appeals process shows the department understood exactly which tender Ó Leocháin meant.

It also acknowledged holding further records relating to it, including tender submissions, a contract with the successful bidder and payment records.

Despite this, DAFM continued to rely on an FOI provision intended for records that cannot be found or do not exist – a decision the Information Commissioner ultimately found was “not justified”.

The snare dispute

In March 2025, Ó Leocháin asked DAFM for records relating to a tender for services connected to the capture of badgers.

Badgers are captured in Ireland as part of the State’s bovine tuberculosis eradication programme, which seeks to control the spread of bovine TB between badgers and cattle.

Some badgers are vaccinated against the disease, while others are culled.

The devices used by DAFM to capture the protected animals are made from multi-strand steel wire and include a swivel, metal runner, shackle and a ferrule – a type of metal ring. The wire is designed to tighten around the badger’s body to prevent it from escaping.

Advertisement

They are placed near badger setts by contractors operating under licences issued by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).

In correspondence with DAFM, which he shared with The Journal Investigates, Ó Leocháin amended the wording of his request to refer to the tender for the “snaring of badgers”.

The department responded that there was no such tender because it does not use snares. It said badgers are captured using cages and devices described in the relevant regulations as “stopped body restraints”.

It’s important to note that the Wildlife Act 1976 and the relevant 2003 regulations do not define the word “snare”. Although the regulations describe the wire devices used to capture badgers as “stopped body restraints”, they do not expressly state that the devices are not snares.

DAFM confirmed to the requester that there was a tender for auxiliary services connected to its TB eradication programme and released some documents.

However, it maintained that records concerning the “snaring” of badgers did not exist.

It formally refused the request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, a provision which allows a public body to refuse access where records do not exist or cannot be found after reasonable searches.

Ó Leocháin sought an internal review, but DAFM stood over its decision. He then decided to appeal the refusal to the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC).

The records existed

During the OIC’s first investigation, DAFM acknowledged that it held further records connected to the tender.

These included draft tender documents, submissions from bidders, the contract with the successful company, payment records and records showing the number of badgers captured.

The department also stated some of the material contained commercially sensitive information.

In January 2026, the OIC annulled DAFM’s refusal and directed it to make a fresh decision. But when the department reconsidered the request, it refused the request again.

In February this year, DAFM repeated that no records existed concerning the “snaring of badgers” because it did not deploy snares.

It provided Ó Leocháin with two documents he had already received. The department upheld that decision following another internal review in April, stating that there were no further documents to provide.

Ó Leocháin was forced to return to the Information Commissioner for a second time on the exact same request.

Sign up
The Journal Investigates is dedicated to lifting the lid on how Ireland works. Our newsletter gives you an inside look at how we do this. Sign up here...

Sign up
You are now signed up

He argued that an FOI request should not be defeated simply because an applicant used terminology the department disliked.

“What makes it most frustrating is that the Department has now admitted that it understood which tender and records I was seeking, yet it continued to refuse my request because I used a word it did not like,” he wrote.

Overruled again

In a binding decision issued on September 1, the OIC annulled DAFM’s refusal for a second time.

It found that both sides understood which tender and badger capture process was at issue. Nobody had suggested that Ó Leocháin was seeking records relating to a different tender.

“The Department now, as then, accepts that it holds further records relating to the tender for Auxiliary Services for TB Eradication Programmes, but it has not engaged with the applicant in relation to these records,” the OIC stated.

The Commissioner found that DAFM was not justified in refusing the request under section 15(1)(a) and ordered it to begin another decision-making process.

The OIC did not decide whether the devices should legally be described as snares, nor did it direct DAFM to release every record.

The department may still withhold some information under other provisions of the FOI Act – but it must identify those records, consider them and justify any refusal.

The decision said the parties’ positions had become “entrenched” and directed DAFM to undertake a fresh decision-making process on the request.

Ó Leocháin, who is still awaiting what will be the department’s third decision, feels the department treated his request with “extraordinary obstinacy”.

“In my view, the department is trying to distance itself from the word ‘snare’ because snares are associated worldwide with indiscriminate suffering and cruelty,” he said.

“It appears unwilling to acknowledge plainly that, in 2026, the Irish government is using snares on a protected native species – a practice that also catches large numbers of non-target animals, including family pets.”

In a statement, DAFM said it has accepted the OIC’s latest ruling and is currently examining the request again, including which records could be released. It declined to comment further while that process is ongoing.

If you have a burning FOI question about how to get certain records or why your request was refused, you can get in touch with our team at investigates@thejournal.ie. The Journal Investigates team will be back with another instalment of The FOI Files next Tuesday.