DVT v Commissioner of Police (No 3)

The applicant, DVT, sought review of a decision made by the Commissioner of Police. The dispute centred around breaches of the Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) under the Public Sector Management Act 1994, specifically IPP 7, which pertains to the protection of personal information. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the Commissioner's decision and determining whether there had been a breach of the IPPs and, if so, what remedies should be awarded. The court was required to decide whether the Commissioner had correctly exercised its discretion under section 14 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994, and whether the applicant was entitled to the personal information they requested under IPP 7. The court also needed to determine if the Commissioner had contravened IPP 7 by not providing the requested information and whether the Commissioner should be ordered to refrain from such conduct in the future.

The court examined the statutory framework and the obligations imposed by the IPPs, focusing on IPP 7, which mandates that personal information held by an agency must not be disclosed to a person who is not authorised by law to receive that information. The Commissioner argued that the information requested was not subject to the IPPs as it was not "personal information" within the meaning of the Act. However, the court found that the information in question did constitute personal information and that the Commissioner was obligated to provide it to the applicant. The court held that the Commissioner had breached IPP 7 by failing to provide the requested information and ordered the Commissioner to provide the information to the applicant within 14 days of the judgment. The court also ordered the Commissioner to refrain from any future conduct that contravened IPP 7.

The court found in favour of the applicant, ordering the Commissioner to provide the requested personal information and to refrain from any conduct that contravened IPP 7 in the future. The court did not award any remedies at this stage, as it had been agreed by the parties that the question of remedies would be determined separately after the question of liability had been decided.