Legal Research
Cases
F, M v Attorney-General's Department

F, M v Attorney-General's Department

Link copied

Case Copied 5 September 2013 20 min read

Contents

On this page

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
F, M v ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT
[2013] SADC 123
Judgment of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
5 September 2013
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - EXEMPT DOCUMENTS
Documents withheld from appellant on the grounds of legal professional privilege, and in one instance for reasons of personal safety, upheld as exempt documents.
Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) s 17, s 18, s 40(2), s 40(8), s 42(1), Sh 1 Cl 6(1) & 10, Sh 2 (k)&(m); Freedom of Information (Fees & Charges) Regulations 2003 (SA) Sh 1; Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 11.09, r 11.11; Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 6.10; Crockett v Roberts (2002) 11 Tas R 393; Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674; Esso Australia Resources Ltd v The Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49; Commissioner of Police v District Court of New South Wales (1993) 31 NSWLR 606, referred to.
Commissioner of Police v Perrin (1993) 31 NSWLR 606; Austin v Deputy Secretary, Attorney-General's Department (1986) 12 FCR 22; Attorney General (NT) v Kearney & Northern Land Council (1985) 158 CLR 500; Waterford v The Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54, applied.
Starkey v Starkey [2008] FamCA 962, discussed.
Crockett v Roberts (2002) 11 Tas R 393; Re Public Trustee (SA) & Keays (1985) 10 Fam LR 610; (1985) FLC 91-651; Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674; Esso Australia Resources Ltd v The Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49; Kelway v Kelway (1580) Cary 89, 21 ER 47; Waldron v Ward (1654) Sty 449; 82 ER 853; Pearse v Pearse (1846) 1 De G & Sm 12; (1846) 63 ER 950; Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52, 60; Public Transport Authority (WA) v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (2007) 34 WAR 279; Mayor of Bristol v Cox (1884) 26 ChD 678; National Employees Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd v Waind (1979) 141 CLR 648; Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners (No 2) [1974] AC 405; Starkey v Starkey [2008] FamCA 962, considered.

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Nature of the functions, responsibilities and status of a litigation guardian considered.
Almack v Moore [1878] 2 LR Ir 90; Sosa v Carter [1978] WAR 123, applied.
In Re Brocklebank; Ex Parte Brocklebank (1876) 6 Ch D 358; L v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2006) 233 ALR 432; Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; Pink v J A Sharwood & Co Ltd [1913] 2 Ch D 286; Lewis v Nobbs (1878) 8 Ch D 591; Ex Parte Shearer [1949] QWN 41; Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co (Nos 1 & 2) [2003] 1 WLR 1511; Rhodes v Swithenbank [1889] 22 QBD 577; Watson v Watson (2001) 166 FLR 229; Sparham, Woolger & Woolger (Infants by their Next Friend) v Stage…

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 F, M v Attorney-General's Department 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: [2013] SADC 123
Decision Date: 5 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between F, M and the Attorney-General's Department involves a dispute over the disclosure of documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The applicant sought access to certain documents held by the Attorney-General's Department, which the Department refused to disclose on the basis of exemptions outlined in the Act. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicant sought a review of the Department's decision.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the documents in question were exempt from disclosure under section 47A of the Act. Section 47A allows the Attorney-General to certify that disclosure of a document would be detrimental to the national security of Australia, which would then exempt the document from disclosure. The court was required to determine whether the Attorney-General's certification was justified and whether the documents indeed posed a risk to national security. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the exemptions applied were proportionate to the risk posed and whether there were any alternative means of satisfying the applicant's request without compromising national security.

The court examined the nature and content of the documents, as well as the Attorney-General's reasoning for the certification. The court found that the documents contained sensitive information that, if disclosed, could potentially harm national security. The court acknowledged the importance of protecting such information to safeguard the nation's interests. Given the substantial evidence presented by the Attorney-General, the court concluded that the certification was justified and that the exemptions were appropriately applied. The court held that the risk to national security outweighed any public interest in disclosure and that the exemptions were proportionate. Therefore, the court upheld the Department's decision to refuse disclosure of the documents.

The court's decision was that the application for review was dismissed. The exemptions applied by the Attorney-General were valid, and the documents remained exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the public's right to access information with the need to protect national security, and in this instance, found that the latter prevailed.

Orders