Bachelard and Australian Federal Police (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to refuse access to four documents. These documents comprised three statements and a Professional Standards Report, all arising from an internal investigation by the AFP's Professional Standards Unit concerning allegations of misconduct. The applicant sought access to these documents, but the AFP refused, citing various exemptions under the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) heard the application for review.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the four documents were exempt from disclosure under section 37(1)(b) of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth) on the basis that their disclosure would reveal the identity of confidential sources of information, and whether they were conditionally exempt under sections 47E(c) and (d) of the Act. Section 47E(c) and (d) relate to documents where disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel or the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency. The Tribunal was also required to consider whether disclosure was in or contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal reasoned that the documents were exempt under section 37(1)(b) because their disclosure would reveal the existence and identity of confidential sources of information. Regarding sections 47E(c) and (d), the Tribunal accepted affidavit evidence from the AFP's Commander of Professional Standards, who stated that the confidentiality of information obtained during internal investigations is foundational to the effective operation of the Command. This evidence highlighted that the Part V investigation process requires officers to report on colleagues' conduct, and that such reports must be confidential to ensure frank and fulsome disclosure. The Commander further explained that even when officers are directed to participate in investigations, confidentiality provisions are critical to afford a level of protection, given the significant encroachment on their rights, including the right against self-incrimination. Disclosure of the material could also reveal sensitive evidence about the conduct under investigation and how it came to attention, potentially enabling individuals to avoid detection in future investigations, thereby having a real and substantial impact on the efficient conduct of the AFP's operations.

The Tribunal affirmed the AFP's decision to refuse access to the four documents.