I have examined the record at issue and, firstly, would accept that the information in the email relates to BIM-�s performance of its functions related to management, and in particular to the management of staff and of its remote facilities. I also accept that the record contains the opinions, advice and recommendations of the relevant operative in relation to issues at the relevant facility. On the matter of the harms that might flow from the record-�s release, I consider that the majority of the information in the email might reasonably be characterised as being of relatively minor significance. I am not entirely convinced that the harms that BIM argued would flow from the record-�s release would definitely come to pass. However, the test in section 30(1)(b) is not whether the harms identified by the FOI body will definitely occur, but rather whether the body-�s belief is reasonable. In other words, in examining a claim for exemption under section 30(1)(b), I need not be satisfied that the outcome identified by the FOI body will undoubtedly occur, and it is sufficient for the FOI body to show that it expects an outcome and that its expectations are justifiable, in the sense that there are adequate grounds for the expectations. I consider that, in this instance, BIM has outlined reasonable grounds for its belief that the harms it has identified would follow from the record-�s release. In particular, in my view it is not unreasonable to suggest that, should the record be released, it would be less likely that BIM would receive similar communications from operatives in the future, due to the potential -�chilling effect-� that would such release may have. Moreover, I am satisfied that the harms identified by BIM, should they come to pass, would constitute a -�significant, adverse effect-� on the functions specified in section 30(1)(b). In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the record in category 8 of the applicant-�s request comes within the scope of section 30(1)(b) of the FOI Act.
