'Willy Wonka' made 745 Department of Agriculture requests over six days, court told

More than 30,000 information requests made under pseudonyms, leading state forestry body Coillte to deploy three additional staff to deal full-time with such requests

'Willy Wonka’, played by Johnny Depp in Charlie and The Chocolate Factory 2005 remake, was one of the popular pseudonyms used.

More than 30,000 information requests were made to the Department of Agriculture last year under pseudonyms linked to Willy Wonka, Mel Gibson, and Russell Crowe, the High Court has heard.

'Willy Wonka’ made 745 individual requests to the department over six days in the autumn of 2022, the Department said.

It reported its annual average of 167 requests under Access to Information on the Environment (AIE ) Regulations ballooned to 32,297 in 2022, with most related to forestry matters.

The court heard that state forestry body Coillte had to deploy three additional staff to deal full-time with such requests.

High Court judge Mr Justice Richard Humphreys remarked the requester is more likely than not to be an individual rather than a group of people and seems to have a particular interest in American cinema from the 1980s and later.

Coillte and its parent Government department both told the High Court they experienced an “unprecedented” increase in requests under the Access to Information on the Environment (AIE) Regulations in 2022.

Coillte told the court the “concerted and co-ordinated campaign” has required it to expend significant resources, including deploying three additional staff to deal full-time with the requests.

The Department of Agriculture said its annual average of 167 AIE requests ballooned to 32,297 in 2022, of which 30,630 were related to forestry matters.

This level of inquiry is “absolutely unprecedented” and has forced it to increase AIE section staffing, which has a knock-on effect for other areas, the department added.

Under the legislation, a public body has four weeks to process an information request, with a further four weeks if required.

The judge remarked the requester was likely to be an individual who had an interest in post-1980s films. Picture: PA Photo/Lionsgate Films

Coillte said there was no prospect of it being able to process the “unprecedented” number of requests within the permissible time period.

Coillte put together a table setting out its views on the possible inspiration behind the requesters’ identities.

Among those seeking information was Ben Wade, who, Coillte said, could be a reference to the character played by Russell Crowe in the 2007 film Yuma. ‘Jess Robin’ might be linked to Neil Diamond’s performance in the 1980 movie The Jazz Singer. ‘Stanley White’ was the name of a captain in the 1985 film  Year of the Dragon, Coillte added.

Coillte said it dealt with earlier requests in the normal way because they at that point seemed typical or one-off. The issue only became apparent in March 2022 when it began to realise a significant number of requests were of a similar style, type, and phraseology.

In the months from then until June 2022, it received 130 pseudonymised requests. It has received no more of these types of requests since June 7, 2022, it said.

Generally, Coillte replied to the requests seeking the individual’s current address and confirmation the names were the requester’s actual legal names. When none of this information was provided, it regarded the requests as invalid.

The requesters then sought an internal review before appealing 81 rejections to the Commissioner for Environmental Information. The commissioner addressed 58 of the cases in a block, with 23 more still to be decided.

In its omnibus decision, the commissioner ruled it had jurisdiction to consider the appeal and found Coillte was not justified in treating the requests as invalid.

The State forestry firm appealed to the High Court seeking to set aside this decision. It wants a declaration that the commissioner erred in accepting and considering the purported appeals.

The court should also declare that Coillte was entitled to require requesters to provide confirmation of their name and address, it says.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys decided that the appeal could not be determined without referring questions of interpreting EU law to the Court of Justice of the EU.

Among the issues referred to is one asking whether the EU directive that gave rise to the AIE Regulations defines an “applicant” as a natural or legal person identified by their actual name and/or physical address, or if it includes an anonymous or pseudonymous person whose contact details are identified only by email.

The reference also asks if the directive prohibits a public authority from seeking confirmation about a requester’s identity where the authority has formed a reasonable view that the identity is questionable.