Complainant alleged that the GPD violated the APRA with respect to two separate APRA requests when: (1) it twice failed to specify the reasons for the denial; (2) it twice failed to indicate in writing that no reasonably segregable portion was releasable; (3) it once failed to indicate the procedures for appealing the denial; and (4) it twice withheld documents based on the purpose for which the records were sought. The evidence revealed that both APRA responses cited a specific APRA exemption and thus we concluded that the GPD did specify the reasons for the denial. However, we also found that the GPD twice failed to indicate in writing that no reasonably segregable portion of the requested document was releasable and additionally once failed to indicate the procedures for appealing the denial. We found no evidence that the documents were withheld based on the purpose for which they were sought.
