CJO v NSW Police Force

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	CJO v NSW Police Force [2016] NSWCATAD 262
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	18 November 2016
Decision date:	18 November 2016
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) The decision under review is set aside. (2) The decision is made that the withheld information is released.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – access to government information – access application – whether release would expose a person to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation
Legislation Cited:	Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Cases Cited:	"B" and Brisbane North Regional Health Authority (1994) 1 QAR 279 AEZ v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [ 2013] NSWADT 90 Attorney General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180 McKinnon v Blacktown City Council [2012] NSWADT 44 Searle Australia Pty Limited v Public Interest Advocacy Centre and Another (1992) 108 ALR 163 Salmon v Corrective Services NSW [2016] NSWCATAD 257 Smith v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 67
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	CJO (Applicant) NSW Police Force (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: CJO (Applicant in person) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	1510741

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. In these reasons the names of some private individuals have been anonymised so as to preserve the privacy of their personal affairs. The Applicant is referred to as CJO.

2. The Applicant made an access application to the Respondent under section 9(1) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (“the GIPA Act”) seeking access to information held by the Respondent. The access application sought:

A copy of all intelligence, event reports and notebook entries made by Police concerned with an encounter I had with them in Sunday 5th July 2015 at Pyrmont.

3. The access application was deemed to be refused under section 63 of the GIPA Act and the Applicant applied for internal review of the deemed decision.

4. On internal review the decision was taken to release an Information Report dated 5 August 2012 (“the Information Report”) to the Applicant, subject to redactions pursuant to clauses 1(d) and 2(b) of the table to section 14 of the GIPA Act on the basis that there were overriding public interest considerations against the disclosure of the redacted information. The redacted information is the names of the police officers.

5. The Respondent contends that the disclosure of the names of the police officers could reasonably be expected to expose those persons to an immediate and serious risk of harm and that, on balance, there is an overriding public interest against the disclosure of that information pursuant to clause (3)(f) of the table to section 14 of the GIPA Act.

6. The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for external review of the Respondent’s decision.

7. The parties have agreed that the matter is to be determined on the basis of the material filed without the need for a hearing.

The Issues

8. The parties…