Carmody v Information Commissioner and Ors (6)

Carmody v Information Commissioner and Ors (6) was a case before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) where the applicant, Ms Carmody, sought a review of a decision by the Information Commissioner (IC) regarding the release of certain documents under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (RTI). The documents in question related to proceedings involving the applicant's former partner, Ms Edwards, and were sought by media outlets. The IC had determined that certain parts of the documents should be disclosed to the media, a decision which Ms Carmody sought to appeal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the IC had properly considered the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, particularly item 9 of schedule 4 of part 3, when deciding whether to release the documents. The Tribunal had to consider if the IC had correctly balanced the public interest in disclosure against the privacy and confidentiality rights of individuals, including whether the IC had erred in its consideration of the fact that much of the information was already in the public domain. Additionally, the Tribunal examined whether the IC had appropriately assessed whether Ms Edwards was the holder of an office connected with a quasi-judicial entity and if the unreleased documents were prepared in relation to the entity’s quasi-judicial functions. It was also crucial to determine whether the IC had considered relevant factors, such as the potential for a breach of confidence action, and if the decision should be remitted to the IC for reconsideration.

In assessing these issues, the Tribunal found that the IC had not properly taken into account the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, specifically item 9 of schedule 4 of part 3. The Tribunal concluded that the IC had erred by inconsistently considering the public domain aspect and had failed to adequately address whether Ms Edwards was a holder of an office connected with a quasi-judicial entity. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the IC had not sufficiently considered the potential for a breach of confidence action. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the appeal, set aside the IC's decision, and refused access to the unreleased documents. The costs of the appeal were reserved, with the parties having the liberty to apply to the Tribunal for costs within 28 days.