A decision by the Bermuda Police Service not to release records of telephone calls sought under Pati was backed by the Deputy Information Commissioner.

The BPS had found earlier that the requested documents did not exist.

The Information Commissioner’s Office said that “under delegated authority”, the Deputy Information Commissioner had issued a decision after reviewing the BPS’s denial of a public access to information request seeking records of the calls.

It added: “The decision affirmed the BPS’s refusal of the Pati request on the basis that no such records existed and further action was not required by the decision.”

An applicant made a Pati request on March 7, 2024 asking for all records relating to recordings of three telephone conversations between the applicant and officers.

The phone calls related to the applicant’s separate request for a record of their personal information.

On making the Pati request, the applicant copied in the Commissioner of Police stating that they were concerned about a potential conflict of interest because the recordings they sought related to the BPS’s information officer — responsible for handling Pati requests.

The BPS issued an initial response five days after the request was submitted, explaining that the records did not exist because only calls made in and out of the BPS’s control room were recorded.

It acknowledged that owing to the applicant’s concerns, the police commissioner had been involved in reaching the service’s decision on the request.

The BPS also informed the applicant that any review of the decision would lie with the Information Commissioner and on May 1, 2024, the applicant asked for an Information Commissioner’s review, which was accepted.

“Public authorities are entitled … to administratively deny a request if a requested record does not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps have been taken to find it,” the decision from LaKai Dill, the Deputy Information Commissioner, said.

It added: “The BPS submitted that its understanding of the Pati request was a literal interpretation of the written request.

“Meaning, the BPS understood that the applicant was seeking audio recordings of three separate telephone conversations the applicant had with different BPS officers on a specified date.

“As context, the BPS submitted an e-mail thread between the applicant and the officers named in the Pati request, which explained the applicant’s separate, prior request seeking access to a record of their personal information.

“The BPS explained that, as a matter of fact, no records existed because the BPS only recorded ‘911’ calls through its control room.

“The BPS’s 911 call recordings were stored for playback if needed and sometimes were used as evidence in court.”

Ms Dill’s decision said: “The Deputy Information Commissioner is satisfied that, based on the BPS’s submissions, its analysis of the Pati request was accurate and complete.”

It added that the Deputy Information Commissioner concluded that the BPS was justified in administratively denying the request.

If not satisfied with the outcome of the Pati request, the applicant retains the right to seek and apply for judicial review to the Supreme Court.