Danis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

In Danis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force, the applicant sought access to a DVD and transcript under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) from the respondent, the Commissioner of Police. The requested documents were from a police interview of the applicant. The dispute was reviewed in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the Commissioner of Police was justified in exercising his discretion to refuse to deal with the application for access to the information. The legal issues included whether the functions were exercised in good faith and whether public interest considerations against disclosure outweighed those in favour. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the information was given in confidence, the risk of prejudice to confidential information, the disclosure of personal information in family law proceedings, and the potential harm to a child from the disclosure. The court also had to weigh the public interest in transparency and accountability against the risk of revealing allegations of police misconduct.

The court found that the Commissioner of Police exercised his discretion in good faith and that the public interest considerations against disclosure were compelling. The information was deemed to have been given in confidence and the disclosure of the DVD could potentially reveal or substantiate allegations of police misconduct. The court also found that the personal information involved could expose a child to a risk of harm or serious harassment or intimidation. The evidence indicated that the best interests of the child were served by not disclosing the information. The court held that the public interest in transparency and accountability did not outweigh the risk of harm to the child and the risk of revealing police misconduct.

The court affirmed the decision of the respondent to refuse access to the DVD and transcript of the DVD. The court held that the public interest against disclosure was overriding and that the Commissioner of Police had appropriately exercised his discretion. The application was dismissed, and the decision of the respondent dated 15 August 2019 was affirmed.