De Graaf and Crimtac Agency - [2008] AATA 1150

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 1150
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No W 2006/72

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re Antonius De Graaf

Applicant

And

Crimtac Agency

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal The Hon Robert Nicholson, Deputy President
Date18 December 2008
PlacePerth

Decision
The Tribunal dismisses the application.

......(sgd) Hon Robert Nicholson.........
Deputy President

Applicable law
9. The FOI Act provides in s 41(1) that a document is an exempt document if its disclosure under that Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a deceased person). It is provided in s 4 of the FOI Act that, subject to statutory appearance of any contrary intention, ‘personal information’ means information or an opinion (including information forming part of a database), whether true or not, and whether recorded in a material form or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from the information or opinion.
10. Section 22 of the FOI, also relied upon by the respondent, provides the authority for deletion of exempt matter when copies of documents are provided. It also provides authority for the deletion of material irrelevant to the request for information.
11. The respondent appreciates that there is a public interest in the applicant having access to information about himself. However this right must be balanced against the rights of the individuals whose privacy would be unreasonably be interfered with if disclosure were to occur. In the Full Federal Court judgement of Colakovski and Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 100 ALR 111 the following statements were made:
The object of the Act as expressed as expressed by section 3 is to give the Australian community the right to access of information in the possession of the Australian Government. What is “unreasonable” disclosure of information for the purposes of section 41(1) must have as its core public interest considerations. The exemptions necessary for the protection of “personal affairs” (section 41) and “business or professional affairs” (section 43) are themselves in my opinion public interest considerations. That is to say it is not in the public interest that the personal or business or professional affairs of persons are necessarily to be disclosed on applications for access to documents. The exemption from disclosure of such information is not to protect private rights, rather it is the furtherance of the public interest that information of this kind is accepted from the general right of public access provided the other conditions mentioned in sections 41 and 43 are satisfied. (Lockhart J at 120 to 121).
…
Turning to the criterion of unreasonableness prescribed in section 42 (1) exclusion, it seems to me that attention is directed amongst other things to whether or not the proposed disclosure would serve the public interest purpose of the legislation which is to open public access information about government which government holds, this being information which in turn is held on behalf of the public. I do not think it is necessary…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read De Graaf and Crimtac Agency and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] AATA 1150
Decision Date: 18 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of De Graaf and Crimtac Agency involved a dispute over the release of personal information under the Freedom of Information Act. The applicant sought information from the National Names Index, specifically regarding a person with a similar name. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the disclosure of this information would be unreasonable and whether it could lead to identity confusion. The documents in question did not identify the date of birth of the person to whom they related, but did contain references to dates of birth that were not the applicants'. The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the disclosure of the requested information would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The Tribunal needed to assess whether the release of the information would lead to identity confusion and whether the information sought was relevant to the applicant. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the documents in question, which contained references to dates of birth other than the applicants', were pertinent to the application.

The Tribunal found that the disclosure of the requested information would be unreasonable as it could potentially lead to identity confusion. The Tribunal noted that the documents did not identify the date of birth of the person to whom they related, and the references to other dates of birth were not relevant to the applicant. As such, the Tribunal determined that releasing the information would not be in the public interest and would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for the release of the personal information.

The Tribunal's final order was that the application was dismissed, and the requested information would not be released. The Tribunal concluded that the disclosure of the information would be unreasonable and could lead to identity confusion, and that the documents in question did not contain relevant information for the applicant. This decision highlights the importance of balancing the right to access information under the Freedom of Information Act with the need to protect personal privacy and prevent identity confusion.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal dismisses the application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.