Carmody v Information Commissioner and Ors (3)

The case of Carmody v Information Commissioner and Ors (3) involves an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner (IC) regarding the disclosure of certain documents to media outlets under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld). The primary issue before the court was whether the IC had erred in her determination that certain documents should be made available to the media. This involved examining the IC's interpretation of sections 12, 14, 17, and schedule 2, part 2, item 1 of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) as well as whether the documents in question were subject to the Act.

The court examined the IC's reasoning, which included her interpretation of the scope of the RTI Act and the exclusions provided under schedule 2, part 2, item 1. The IC found that the Supreme Court was not part of the Department of Justice and Attorney General (DJAG) for the purposes of the RTI Act, which she deemed incompatible with the independence of the Supreme Court. The court further considered whether the documents in dispute were "in possession" of DJAG and whether DJAG had a "present legal entitlement" to access those documents. Additionally, the court assessed whether the documents related to the exercise of the Supreme Court's judicial functions and whether they contained "exempt information" or if their disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the IC had erred in her interpretation of the RTI Act and in her assessment of the public interest. The court found that the IC had taken into account irrelevant considerations and failed to consider relevant ones in determining that it was in the public interest for the documents to be disclosed. The court determined that on re-exercise of the discretion, the public interest harm in the disclosure of the documents far outweighed any benefit in their disclosure. Consequently, access to the documents in dispute was to be refused.

The court upheld the appeal by the applicant and DJAG, set aside the order of the IC, and refused access to the documents in dispute. The costs of the appeal were reserved with liberty to the parties to apply to the Tribunal on 28 days’ notice on the issue of costs.