Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: FNJ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 130 Hearing dates: On the papers and 29 September 2022 Date of orders: 2 December 2022 Decision date: 02 December 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Higgins, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision of the respondent not to deal with the information sought by the applicant in Parts 1 and 3 of his access application is affirmed.
(2) The decision of the respondent that no further information is held in response to Part 2 of the applicant’s access application is affirmed.
(3) The decision of the respondent to refuse to deal with Part 4 of the applicant’s access application is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision is made that no information is held in response to Part 4 of the applicant’s access application.
(4) The decision of the respondent to refuse the applicant access to the redacted information in event report E xxxxxx901 and the redacted information in the Constable’s notebook for 13 September 2019 is affirmed.
(5) The decision of the respondent that no further information is held in response to Part 5 of the applicant’s access application is affirmed.
(6) The decision of the respondent to refuse the applicant access to the telephone recordings made on 27 and 28 May 2019 is affirmed.
(7) The decision of the respondent that no further information is held in response to Part 7 of the applicant’s access application is affirmed.
(8) The decision of the respondent that no information is held in response to Part 8 of the applicant’s access application is affirmed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRAVIVE LAW – Access to government information – information not held - conclusive presumed public interest against disclosure - Government Information (Public Access)09 (NSW) s 14(1) and Sch 1 cl 7
ADMINISTRAVIVE LAW – Access to government information – refuse to deal with information sought - Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) s 60(1)(d) and (e)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Access to government information - public interest considerations against disclosure - Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) s 14(2) and table item 1(d), 1(f), 2(a), 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) – whether, on balance, the public interests against disclosure outweigh the public interest in favour of disclosure
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) (repealed)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Police Act 1990
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Cases Cited: Commissioner of Police v Danis [2017] NSWCATAP 7
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 19
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
DYD v Commissioner of Police [2019] NSWCATAD 265
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
Macquarie University v Howell (No 2) [2009] NSWADTAP 19
Continue reading FNJ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- FNJ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 130
- Case
- [2022] NSWCATAD 130
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to address several legal issues, including whether the respondent was correct in refusing to deal with the information sought by the applicant in certain parts of his access application. Specifically, the court examined if the respondent was justified in asserting that no further information was held in response to certain parts of the application. Additionally, the court considered whether the respondent's decision to refuse access to specific pieces of information, such as event reports and telephone recordings, was in accordance with the law.
The court found that the respondent's decisions to refuse to deal with the information sought in parts of the applicant's access application were affirmed, as were the decisions asserting that no further information was held in certain cases. However, the court set aside the decision regarding Part 4 of the access application, substituting it with a decision that no information was held in response to that part. The court also affirmed the decisions to refuse access to specific pieces of information, such as the redacted information in event reports and telephone recordings, finding that the public interest considerations against disclosure outweighed the public interest in favour of disclosure. The court concluded that the respondent's decisions were lawful and reasonable in most instances, with the exception of Part 4 of the access application.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The decision of the respondent not to deal with the information sought by the applicant in Parts 1 and 3 of his access application is affirmed.
(2) The decision of the respondent that no further information is held in response to Part 2 of the applicant’s access application is affirmed.
(3) The decision of the respondent to refuse to deal with Part 4 of the applicant’s access application is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision is made that no information is held in response to Part 4 of the applicant’s access application.
(4) The decision of the respondent to refuse the applicant access to the redacted information in event report E xxxxxx901 and the redacted information in the Constable’s notebook for 13 September 2019 is affirmed.
(5) The decision of the respondent that no further information is held in response to Part 5 of the applicant’s access application is affirmed.
(6) The decision of the respondent to refuse the applicant access to the telephone recordings made on 27 and 28 May 2019 is affirmed.
(7) The decision of the respondent that no further information is held in response to Part 7 of the applicant’s access application is affirmed.
(8) The decision of the respondent that no information is held in response to Part 8 of the applicant’s access application is affirmed.
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.