De Graaf v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police

[2007] NSWADT 101

CITATION:	De Graaf v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2007] NSWADT 101
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Antonius Johannes Marinus de Graaf RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police
FILE NUMBER:	063330
HEARING DATES:	24 January 2007
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	24 January 2007
DATE OF DECISION:	1 May 2007
BEFORE:	Pearson L - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	access to documents - adequacy of search - access to documents - personal affairs - amendment of documents - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - adequacy of search - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - personal affairs - Freedom of Information Act - amendment of documents
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Freedom of Information Act 1989
CASES CITED:	Beesley v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 52 Cianfrano v Director General, Department of Commerce & Anor (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195 Chapman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 35 Commissioner of Police v District Court of NSW (1993) 31 NSWLR 606 General Manager, WorkCover Authority of NSW v Law Society of NSW [2006] NSWCA 84 Gilling v General Manager, Hawkesbury City Council [1999] NSWADT 43 Miriani v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 187 P v Greater Western Area Health Service [2007] NSWADT 87 Re Chandra and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1984) 6 ALN N257 Saleam v Director General, Department of Community Services [2002] NSWADT 41 University of NSW v McGuirk [2006] NSWSC 1362
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT W Pisani, agent
ORDERS:	Decision under review is affirmed

1 The applicant in this matter, Mr Antonius Johannes Marinus De Graaf, born in 1952 (referred to in these reasons as “the applicant”), believes that the NSW Police have erred in combining his records with those of another person with a similar name, and a different date of birth (referred to in these reasons as “the Other ID”), and that authorities including the NSW Police have made decisions adverse to him as a consequence of this identity confusion.

2 In 2001 the applicant obtained documents from the respondent under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (the FOI Act). On 2 December 2004 the applicant made a new request for documents under the FOI Act. The documents requested were identified in a letter (dated 28 November 2004) attached to the request. In that letter the applicant referred to documents which he had previously obtained, which he stated established that the records for the two IDs had been “doubled”, and stated his request in the following terms:

Under NSW FOI 1989 (Form (P3) and Postal Order $15 attached) in this fresh application could you please supply the following relating to the 2 ID “Exact Matches”, noting that, as I have illustrated, both were used as my personal record.

1/ Copy all fingerprints, and documents relating to the source.

2/ Alias/Nickname list, and relevant documents establishing the sources.

3/ Court Briefs/crisps relating to Court hearings commencing 23 December 1999.

4/ May 1999 Police notes relating to this incident.

5/ Court Briefs /crisps relating to any other NSW matters.

6/ All other criminal and traffic records relating to the Antonius Johannes DE GRAAF ID matches.

7/ Docket/Person numbers (old and new).

8/ The audit report for the dates 15 – 18/05/1999, from the previous FOI (P10) attached, is incorrect. The matching criteria no 701850260 was not even in existence on this date. Could you please match this report to all of the DE GRAAF ID records, and try again.

9/ Sydney Police (Rose Bay) records. I appreciate your dept (unsuccessfull) enquiry (note P11) with the Rose Bay Police for any records. My reason for this request was due to a harassment (6 Police) on the Rose Bay jetty, 1997/98. It is clear that this was due to the wrong record, and little wonder Police couldn’t find it. Could you please refer to the Audit Report, (Both ID’s) around this time, which will identify the details, and forward all these details.

3 In this letter the applicant also requested amendment of records in the following terms:

From the above I suggest it is rather clear to you that these records contain department generated errors. Could you please flag warnings on both the relevant ID records, criminal and/or traffic so that it is clear, not to identify these ID’s with each other. Please supply me with a copy of the result.

4 There was some correspondence between the applicant and the respondent. On 7 April 2005 the Co-ordinator of the FOI Unit, Sgt Mark Maddox, notified the applicant of his determination. In that determination Sgt Maddox stated that he had identified three criminal names index numbers (CNI) which appeared to relate to the applicant, and had examined the documents relating to each of those CNIs. In relation to the request for fingerprints and documents in point 1, the determination was to release in full five documents relating to those CNIs, and to release a further document with deletions in respect of personal information of another person (not the Other ID). Sgt Maddox advised that there was no record of the applicant’s fingerprint records. In relation to the request for alias/nickname list one document was released. In relation to point 6, the applicant’s traffic record and three infringement notices were released in full; a document relating to the Other ID had previously been given to the applicant, and clause 6 of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act applied. In relation to the other matters identified in the applicant’s request (points 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9), Sgt Maddox advised that no records could be located.

5 The applicant requested internal review on 5 June 2005. On 5 October 2005 the then Acting Deputy Director wrote to the applicant requesting clarification of the request. The applicant responded on 18 October 2005. On 23 November 2005 the applicant was advised of the determination of the internal review. The determination outlined searches conducted at the Criminal Records section, on the Computerised Operational Policing System (COPS), at Byron Bay and Tweed Heads Commands. A further search for audit reports had located an Audit Report for the dates 15-18 May 1999, and access was given to that document. In all other respects the original decision was affirmed.

6 On 7 July 2006 the applicant wrote to the Ombudsman, requesting investigation of two matters, which he described as “FOI matters/external review” and “NSWPS incorrect ID record use/ ID record doubling and resulting bias”. On 16 August 2006 an Investigation Officer for the NSW Ombudsman advised the applicant that she was satisfied that thorough searches had been conducted by the NSW Police FOI Unit; that access to documents containing information relating to the Other ID had properly been refused; and that no further action would be taken.

7 On 1 September 2006 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review. Following a planning meeting held on 11 October 2006, the respondent filed an affidavit by Sgt Maddox and supporting documents, and the respondent filed a detailed submission in reply. The matter was heard on 24 January 2007. The applicant participated in both the planning meeting and the hearing by telephone.

Respondent’s case

8 The respondent’s case is that it has conducted exhaustive and thorough searches of its records for documents covered by the applicant’s request, and there is nothing further that it can provide.

9 Sgt Maddox provided an affidavit, and gave oral evidence and was cross examined. In his affidavit Sgt Maddox stated that he was Co-ordinator of the FOI Unit from 2004, and outlined the practice within the FOI section for processing FOI requests. Sgt Maddox stated:

15. I have perused the file in relation to this matter, and have ascertained that as part of the Internal Review process, exhaustive searches were completed for documents addressing every identified item of the Applicant’s request, as follows:

(a) Enquiries through the COPS system, including the conduct of a systems audit;

(b) Searches at both Byron Bay and Tweed Heads Commands, involving manual searches through the Brief Index Book, through Police Notebook F227225, and further verbal inquiries. Annexed hereto and marked with the letter “J” is a copy of correspondence disclosing the e\searches undertaken;

(c) Searches through the Criminal Records System and the Forensic Services Group, involving manual and extensive searches through Microfilm records. I note that this search resulted in the location of Microfilm records from the Western Australian Police in relation to [the Other ID]. As these documents were, in fact, held by the Western Australian Police, the same were not dealt with under the ambit of this application (given that they were not documents Held by the respondent), and the Applicant was directed to make application to the Western Australian Police Service for access to the same.

With the exception of the production of a COPS audit report for the dates 15 May 1999- 18 May 1999, the above searches failed to locate any further documents pertaining to Mr De Graaf’s application.

10 In his oral evidence Sgt Maddox stated that he considers that the root of the applicant’s concern is a document which the applicant stated in his initial request he obtained “after a conclusion a Court hearing in the Byron Bay Court 19 April 2001”. That document is a computer printout, and has six entries, A to F. Each of those entries has a different CNI number. Entries A, B and D are to “DE GRAAF, Antonius Johannes”; two of those provide (different) address details. Entry A shows the Other ID birthdate, and entries B and D show the applicant’s birthdate. Sgt Maddox explained that an officer who goes into the COPS system to search for a person may put in minimal information, and the system will throw up both the name entered, and similar names. That does not mean that those names all belong to the same person. The appearance of two names in the system does not mean that those two entries are the same person, but only that there are two entries in the system. Further, one person can have multiple CNI numbers. Sgt Maddox stated that the applicant has been given all records except for those which relate to the Other ID.

11 In the course of cross examination, Sgt Maddox stated that the COPS system records every time an officer accesses the system. The Audit Report from 15 May 1999 refers to three different CNI numbers, and shows the records located by the officer conducting the search.

Applicant’s case

12 The applicant has provided to the tribunal extensive documentation in support of his case. Much of the detail in these documents goes to the history of his dealings with various authorities, including the NSW Police, and elaborates on what he regards as the consequences of a confusion of identities. The applicant has provided spreadsheet tallies and inventories of documents as provided by the respondent, both in the sequence in which they arrived and in chronological order, and a revised spreadsheet summary chronology. These documents are cross-referenced to the documents provided by the respondent, and to the particular points in the affidavit of Sgt Maddox, the determinations of Sgt Maddox and Chief Inspector Scholz, and to his own requests and submissions. The applicant has provided two CDs, containing the spreadsheets and tally documents prepared by him, with hyperlinks.

13 The applicant provided a detailed written submission, dated 4 December 2006, in which he outlined his arguments and responses to the matters included in the affidavit of Sgt Maddox. In his written submission, the applicant outlined the history of his applications under the FOI Act. The applicant elaborated on this during the hearing, and stated that he initially became concerned in 2000 when there were some peculiarities in his dealings with the NSW Police. After he obtained the computer printout in 2001 which showed the two IDs as “Exact Matches”, he requested documents under FOI from the respondent, including all records relating to the Other ID, and received a bundle of documents.

14 In his written submission the applicant referred to the objects of the FOI Act, and expressed concern about how FOI requests are handled by government agencies. In particular, he stated that although he has headed most FOI communications by referring to both IDs, and “Identity mix-ups /incorrect ID record use”, NSW Police have dealt with his requests by dealing only with requests for documents concerning “yourself”.

15 The applicant further expressed concern that the FOI Act “does not appear to cover enquiries”. In paragraph 34 of his written statement the applicant notes:

I have noted that NSWP imported this incorrect ID data from interstate. Hence I requested records relating to the NSWP ‘sources’ of these records, so that I can address and correct these sources. Like bank deposits, NSWP must have records (such as audits (etc) indicating when and from where NSWP obtained such records, or else the system would fail.

16 During the hearing the applicant stated that he is concerned that his request was re-framed by Sgt Maddox, and expressed concern that some of the paperwork he has received is not an accurate record.

Consideration

17 Under s16(1) of the FOI Act, a person has a legally enforceable right to be given access to an agency’s documents. This right is subject to other provisions of the FOI Act, in particular s25(1)(a), under which an agency can refuse access to a document if it is an exempt document. Under s61 of the FOI Act, the respondent bears the onus of establishing that its determination of the applicant’s request was justified.

18 The applicant’s concerns essentially are that the respondent has not properly dealt with his request for access because it has treated the request as being for access to documents concerning himself, and it has failed to provide all documents relating, in the broadest sense, to the sources of information so as to explain how the identity mix-up occurred. Further, the respondent has failed to respond to his request for amendment of the records by flagging the records so that the identity mix-up does not continue.

19 In his written correspondence and his oral submissions the applicant also expressed concern at the delays in dealing with his request. Both the initial determination and the internal review determination were made well after the time periods prescribed in the FOI Act. In his affidavit Sgt Maddox stated that the FOI section processed approximately 7000 requests in the 2005 calendar year. It may be that the respondent’s failure to meet the specified time periods is a reflection of the resources allocated, however that is not within the scope of the tribunal’s review.

Search for documents and sources

20 The applicant has requested access to particular documents, and is seeking information to determine the source or sources of what he regards as the identity confusion.

21 The right of access created by section 16 of the FOI Act for access to “an agency’s documents” is to be interpreted as widely as possible, consistently with the principle of openness articulated in the objects of the Act in section 5: Humane Society International Inc v National Parks and Wildlife Service [2000] NSWADT 133. However, this right is subject to the limitations specified in the Act. Section 6(1) defines “agency’s document” to mean “a document that is held by the agency”. Under section 6(2):

(d) a reference to a document includes a reference to a copy of the document, and

(e) a reference to a document held by an agency includes a reference to a document to which the agency has an immediate right of access and a document that is in the possession, or under the control, of a person in his or her capacity as an officer of the agency,

22 The FOI Act requires the respondent to ascertain what documents it holds, as defined in s6 of the Act. It does not require the respondent to conduct an investigation as to how particular documents came to be in its possession, or to provide access to documents held by other agencies or entities. In the internal review determination Byron Bay Local Court and the Western Australian Police Service were identified as possibly holding documents that might relate to the applicant’s request, and the applicant was advised to contact those agencies.

23 In Cianfrano v Director General, Department of Commerce & Anor (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195 the President of the Tribunal, O’Connor DCJ, held that where an applicant raises an argument that an agency has failed to locate relevant documents, and puts before the Tribunal some credible material or submissions which persuade the Tribunal that an arguable case exists, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether the agency has failed properly to determine the application so that there is a deemed refusal of the application for the purposes of s24(2). In this matter the respondent has not argued that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue, but rather argues that the searches undertaken as part of the initial determination and the determination on internal review have exhausted the possibilities of avenues of search for documents falling within the applicant’s request.

24 The issue of what constitutes an adequate search was considered by Deputy President Hennessy in Chapman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 35 at [14]-[15]:

There are two issues. The first is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the requested documents exist or should exist and are, or should be, held by the agency. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, the next question is whether the agency has taken all reasonable steps to find the documents and is satisfied that they are in the agency's possession but cannot be found or that they do not exist. The adequacy of efforts made by an agency to locate documents the subject of an FOI access application are to be judged by having regard to what was reasonable in the circumstances: Re Anti-Fluoridation Association of Victoria and Secretary to Department of Health (1985) 8 ALD 163.

25 The Tribunal noted in Beesley v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 52 that in determining whether an agency holds a document, evidence of searches carried out to locate the document will be relevant. The Tribunal observed at [19]:

All the Tribunal can do is assess the evidence in each case to decide the strength of the applicant's suspicions and the adequacy of the agency's endeavours to satisfy them. If left unsatisfied by the agency's evidence, its only remedies may be to direct further searches, or the production of better evidence as to searches or the reference of the cases to the Ombudsman.

26 In Miriani v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 187, President O’Connor DCJ stated at [30]:

What constitutes a ‘sufficient search’ will vary with the circumstances. Key factors in making an assessment include the clarity of the request, the way the agency’s recordkeeping system is organised and the ability to retrieve any documents that are the subject of the request, by reference to the identifiers supplied by the applicant or those that can be inferred reasonably by the agency from any other information supplied by the applicant.

27 The evidence as to the searches that have been conducted in this matter comes in the written determinations of Sgt Maddox and Chief Inspector Scholz, the affidavit of Sgt Maddox, and his oral evidence. That evidence outlines the searches that have been conducted through the COPS system, at Rose Bay, Byron Bay and Tweed Heads Commands, including manual searches, and through the Criminal Records System and Forensic Services Groups. Sgt Maddox concludes his affidavit as follows:

16.After perusal of the abovementioned files, I am of the view that the Respondent has conducted exhaustive searches in response to all applications tendered by the Applicant. The aforementioned evidence comprehensively details the efforts and measures taken by myself, staff in my Office and other staff employed through the Compliance Law division and Agency generally to locate the documents requested by the Applicant.

17.Having implemented the processes described within this affidavit, I do not know of any further location that might reasonably be searched or any further inquiry that might reasonably be made for the purpose of identifying, locating or producing documents of the kind described in the Applicant’s request. I am unable to say with certainty that documents of the kind described in that application have never existed or have been held by the Police Service, but I am not able to suggest any further avenue of inquiry that is likely to result in production of any further documents concerning the Applicant.

28 The summaries of the searches undertaken as recorded in the determinations and in Sgt Maddox’s affidavit have addressed all nine points of the applicant’s request. No further possible avenue of inquiry emerged during the evidence given or submissions made during the hearing. I am satisfied that the respondent has made adequate endeavours to locate documents held by it which fall within the terms of the applicant’s request.

Documents relating to both identities

29 In paragraph 12 of his affidavit, Sgt Maddox makes it clear that he interpreted the applicant’s request to be for documents falling within the nine numbered points, relating to himself. That is consistent with the terms of his initial determination made on 7 April 2005. In her letter to the applicant dated 5 October 2005 as part of the internal review process, Chief Inspector Scholz sought clarification of points 1, 2 and 8 of the original request, and asked whether the request related to the Other ID, the applicant, or both. The applicant’s reply is detailed and extensive, however in it he refers to his request for internal review in which he had stated:

In clarification, it is the data entries and details, enquiries etc into both these ID records mistakenly used by NSWP in relation to me , that are relevant. Including all notations enquiries and, details of with whom these erroneous records were exchanged.

30 In a further reference to his request for internal review concerning the audit reports, the applicant stated:

What I want is all concise Computer record entry Audit reports/record of enquiries into both DE GRAAF ID records. Date, time, location, reason etc. Both in NSW and from NSW into National and Interstate databases.

This is so that I can trace/match with whom all this incorrect information was exchanged, from where NSWP got their information, and minimise any future damage. I have no need for anybodies private details.

31 The internal review determination was made on the basis that the applicant was requesting access to documents relating to both IDs. In her determination Chief Inspector Scholz outlined the searches she had undertaken. No fingerprint records had been located; no alias/nicknames had been recorded for either the applicant or the Other ID; there were no documents within the ambit of points 3 or 4 (which included point 5 in the original request) for either ID; there were no documents which could be described as “docket/person numbers (old and new)” as requested in point 7; and further searches for matters included in point 8 had located an audit report for the dates 15-18 May 1999. That document was released in full.

32 Point 6 of the original request was a request for “all other criminal and traffic records” of the ID matches. In her internal review determination Chief Inspector Scholz outlined the searches undertaken, and stated:

These enquiries have involved detailed searches under both the name of the Applicant and the name of [the Other ID], and under all CNI numbers connected with both identities. Unfortunately, these searches have failed to result in the discovery of any documentation pertaining to item 6 of the Application, other than those already disclosed in full to the Applicant (as they related to him directly) as a result of the original determination of this agency.

33 The original determination had stated that a document falling within the terms of point 6 had been located relating to the Other ID, and that this document was exempt under clause 6 of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act. While the internal review determination did not in terms consider the exemption, Chief Inspector Scholz concurred with the decision in the initial determination.

34 Clause 6 of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act provides:

(1) A document is an exempt document if it contains matter the disclosure of which would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information concerning the personal affairs of any person (whether living or deceased).

(2) A document is not an exempt document by virtue of this clause merely because it contains information concerning the person by or on whose behalf an application for access to the document is being made.

35 For a document to be exempt under cl 6, firstly, it must contain “information concerning the personal affairs” of a person other than the applicant and, secondly, the disclosure of that information would be “unreasonable”. What constitutes the “personal affairs” of a person has been discussed in a number of decisions both of the courts and of the Tribunal. In Gilling v General Manager, Hawkesbury City Council [1999] NSWADT 43, at par 33, Deputy President Hennessy said the purpose of the personal affairs exemption is to allow the public interest in personal privacy to be balanced against the public interest in people having open access to information held by government.

36 The leading authority on what constitutes the “personal affairs” of a person is the NSW Court of Appeal decision in Commissioner of Police v District Court of NSW (1993) 31 NSWLR 606 (‘Perrin’s case’) where, at 625, Kirby P described “personal affairs” as meaning “the composite collection of activities personal to the individual concerned”.

37 With regard to when the disclosure of information is unreasonable, in Saleam v Director General, Department of Community Services [2002] NSWADT 41, at paragraph 38, the President of the Tribunal, O’Connor DCJ, followed the approach adopted by the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Re Chandra and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1984) 6 ALN N257, at par 51:

Whether a disclosure is ‘unreasonable’ requires, in my view, a consideration of all the circumstances, including the nature of the information that would be disclosed, the circumstances in which the information was being obtained, the likelihood of the information being information that the person concerned would not wish to be disclosed without consent, and whether that information has any current relevance.

38 I am satisfied, based on the description of the relevant document, that it contains personal information of a person other than the applicant, and, given the nature of the information that would be disclosed, that disclosure would be unreasonable. The Tribunal has a discretion to order access to be given to documents which are exempt documents under the FOI Act: University of NSW v McGuirk [2006] NSWSC 1362. In P v Greater Western Area Health Service [2007] NSWADT 87 Acting Deputy President R Handley discussed how the discretion should be exercised:

First, in cases where exercise of the residual discretion is in issue, the Tribunal must first consider whether particular documents are exempt under the Act, and only if it finds documents to be exempt should it then consider whether to exercise the residual discretion. Second, the discretion should only be exercised where there are strong grounds justifying the overriding of an exemption. The approach to be taken is one of balancing the competing interests involved according to the words of the Act, bearing in mind the stated objects of the Act: General Manager, WorkCover Authority of NSW v Law Society of NSW [2006] NSWCA 84, at par 151. In NSW, the public interest is a relevant matter in determining whether there are strong grounds justifying exercise of the discretion, and this should be considered in the light of the objects of the FOI Act, set out in s 5.

39 I am not satisfied that there are grounds for exercising the discretion. The applicant’s request for access was framed in a way that made it clear that it was intended to clarify the source or sources of the confusion of identities, and that it is the potential for confusion, rather than the actual content of the documents, that is relevant. A further factor is that the applicant has already received a copy of this document through his earlier FOI application, determined on 4 December 2001. The copy of that determination provided as an annexure to the affidavit of Sgt Maddox indicates that the terms of the initial request for access in that application were more limited than those in this application. However, as part of that determination the applicant was provided with documents from the COPS system relating to the CNI number of the Other ID, on the basis that the decision-maker was “satisfied that you are the person to whom the …CNI apply”. The applicant confirmed at the hearing that he had earlier received a number of documents relating to the Other ID. The respondent’s representative conceded that it is possible that the decision-maker in 2001 had made a mistake.

Amendment of records

40 Part 4 of the FOI Act deals with amendment of an agency’s records. Section 39 provides:

39 Right to apply for amendment of agencies’ records

A person to whom access to an agency’s document has been given may apply for the amendment of the agency’s records:

(a) if the document contains information concerning the person’s personal affairs, and

(b) if the information is available for use by the agency in connection with its administrative functions, and

(c) if the information is, in the person’s opinion, incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading.

41 Neither the initial determination nor the internal review determination specifically addressed the applicant’s request for the records to be flagged. Under s43 of the FOI Act, an agency that fails to determine an application for amendment of records within 21 days after the application is received by the agency is taken to have determined the application by refusing to amend its records in accordance with the application. An application can be made for internal review of such a deemed determination, under s47(7) of the FOI Act. Under s47(6), an agency that fails to determine an application for internal review within 14 days after it is received by the agency is taken to have made a determination under section 43 refusing to amend its records in accordance with the application. The decision under review is, accordingly, a deemed refusal to amend the records.

42 The respondent’s representative conceded in his submissions that the amendment request had not been addressed, however he argued that the COPS system sufficiently differentiates between individuals not to need flags. The oral evidence of Sgt Maddox was that the manner in which information is stored, searched, and retrieved, from the COPS system does not mean that the applicant’s identity is confused with the Other ID. The evidence of Sgt Maddox was given on the basis of a number of years’ experience as a police officer with access to the COPS system, and as Co-ordinator of the FOI Unit. I accept that evidence. Those using the COPS system can be presumed to understand how that system records information.

43 Section 39 relates to amendment of a document (or documents) containing information, rather than to a record keeping system as a whole. The applicant’s concerns derive from the computer printout he received in 2001 (described in paragraph 10 above). While this document meets the requirements of paragraphs (a), and (b) of s39, I am not satisfied, in light of the Sgt Maddox’s evidence, that it is misleading or otherwise falls within paragraph (c). I am satisfied that the (deemed) refusal to amend the records is the correct and preferable decision.

Conclusion

44 I am satisfied that the respondent has made adequate attempts to locate all documents held within the agency that fall within the scope of the applicant’s request, and to provide access to the applicant to such documents other than exempt documents. I am also satisfied that there is no basis for amendment of the respondent’s records. The decision under review should be affirmed.

Order

Decision under review affirmed.