Bachelard v Australian Federal Police

Bachelard v Australian Federal Police involved an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal), which had affirmed the Australian Federal Police's (AFP) refusal to release certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act). Mr Bachelard had requested access to three witness statements and a professional standards report concerning an investigation into the conduct of a former AFP Commissioner. The key legal issues revolved around whether the Tribunal misapplied sections 37(1)(b), 47E(c) and (d), 47F, and 11A(5) of the FOI Act in affirming the AFP’s decision. Specifically, the appeal questioned whether the Tribunal correctly identified the documents as exempt or conditionally exempt, and whether it properly considered the possibility of redacting sensitive information to facilitate disclosure without compromising privacy or public interest.

The court found that the Tribunal had misapplied the FOI Act by not considering the possibility of redacting certain information from the documents to avoid disclosing confidential sources or personal information that would be unreasonable to disclose. The court held that the Tribunal failed to properly apply the "public interest" test and did not sufficiently address whether disclosure of edited copies of the documents could be achieved without revealing confidential sources or unreasonable personal information. The court also found that the Tribunal erred in concluding that parts of the report were irrelevant and outside the scope of the request.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Administrative Review Tribunal for re-hearing. Additionally, the AFP was ordered to pay Mr Bachelard's costs of the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of considering redactions and the public interest test in FOI Act proceedings.