Cheung v Commissioner of Police

Cheung sought access to certain information held by the Commissioner of Police pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner refused access, relying on a secrecy provision in another statute. Cheung appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the central issue was whether the secrecy provision in the other legislation constituted a valid reason for refusing access under the Freedom of Information Act. The court also considered whether an alternative form of access could be provided.

The court held that the secrecy provision in the other legislation did indeed constitute a valid reason for refusing access. The court found that the secrecy provision was designed to protect a significant public interest, and that disclosure of the information could potentially undermine that interest. The court emphasised that the decision to refuse access was not taken lightly, and that it was made only after careful consideration of the potential consequences of disclosure. The court also noted that the provision of alternative access was not possible in this case, as the information sought by Cheung was of a sensitive nature and could not be provided in a form that would not compromise the public interest.

The court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner to refuse access to the information sought by Cheung. The court noted that the decision was not based on any prejudice against Cheung, but rather on a careful consideration of the public interest and the potential consequences of disclosure. The court also emphasised that the decision was not a blanket refusal of access, but rather a decision that was specific to the information sought in this case.

The final orders of the court were that the decision under review be affirmed, and that Cheung's appeal be dismissed. The court noted that this decision was not a criticism of Cheung's right to seek access to information, but rather a recognition of the need to balance that right against the need to protect the public interest. The court emphasised that the decision was specific to the facts of this case, and that it did not preclude Cheung from seeking access to other information that was not subject to the same secrecy provision.