Crang v Commissioner of Police (No 2)

[2010] NSWADT 63

CITATION:	Crang v Commissioner of Police (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 63
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Jessica Maree Crang RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police
FILE NUMBER:	093085
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	30 January 2010
DATE OF DECISION:	8 March 2010
BEFORE:	Wilson R - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Access to documents. Exemptions by reason of disclosure of confidential source of information - personal information - and information given in confidence.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Freedom of Information Act 1989
CASES CITED:	Crang v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force 2010 NSWADT 5
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT J Windsor, solicitor
ORDERS:	1.The applicant is granted access to a redacted copy of the subject document, being a copy from which material has been deleted as shown in exhibit ADT 1 and as identified in paragraph 2 of the respondent’s confidential submissions dated 28.01.10 2.The respondent is directed to provide a copy of the redacted version of the document to the applicant, being a redacted copy from which information has been excised in accordance with these reasons and this determination, within 14 days from receipt of these reasons.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 The applicant commenced these proceedings seeking access to documents which had been refused by the respondent upon internal review under the Act. No jurisdictional issues were raised. At the last planning meeting the parties agreed that a hearing was not necessary as the matter could be decided upon the submissions filed.

2 By consent the only document which required the Tribunal’s determination was a single intelligence report (No. 131693389) consisting of two folios (exhibit R1), an exhibit which the applicant has not seen. The Tribunal earlier determined that it was appropriate for the applicant to be given a copy of this document provided that certain parts were excised (Crang v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force 2010 NSWADT 5). These parts refer or identify a person other than the applicant. A draft of the excised document was prepared and admitted as exhibit ADT 1, a copy of which was provided to the respondent only for the purpose of comment. The applicant has not been provided with a copy of this exhibit.

3 The respondent, by written submission, has accepted the excisions made by the Tribunal in exhibit ADT 1 but has submitted that a further excision should be made. By confidential submission dated 28.01.10 the respondent has identified this additional excision, as set forth in paragraph 2 thereof. It is sufficient to here describe that additional excision as being the first two lines in the second paragraph of the narrative. These two lines refer to a person other than the applicant.

4 The Tribunal is persuaded that this addition excision should be made, as the respondent submits, before the applicant is given access to the excised version, for the reasons set forth in the respondent’s recent submissions (see paragraph 4 of the open submissions dated 28.01.10). The consequence is that all of the information that has been excised from the document is information that refers to, or would identify, the person other than the applicant who is referred to in the document. The applicant does not press an argument that such information should be released to her.

5 Therefore the applicant is granted access to a copy of the document from which material has been excised in accordance with these reasons. The Tribunal will make directions accordingly.