No charade, really
Having re-read the entry below I feel fairness demands that I point out that, despite the sarcastic tone adopted, internal reviews do quite often result in the release of more information than the initial request.
While in some cases they do seem to be rubber-stamping exercises, in others they are clearly methodical re-examinations which lead to the correct disclosure of information.
This often seems to be because the more senior person dealing with the review has a better grasp of the law and the public interest test, and/or is more confident about releasing information compared to junior officials who may be excessively cautious.
In other words, it is well worth taking cases to internal review where you are dissatisfied with the response - especially if the arguments used about the public interest seem weak, formulaic and not really addressed to the specific circumstances of your request.
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
I could have added that according to the latest official statistics from the DCA, in 18% of internal reviews monitored the applicant's complaint was partly or wholly upheld (although this doesn't mean they necessarily got more information).
The statistics are at See Table 5.