Giddings v Australian Information Commissioner

The case of Giddings v Australian Information Commissioner involved Mr Giddings, who sought judicial review of a decision by the Australian Information Commissioner (AIC) to refuse to continue reviewing a decision made by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The primary issue before the court was whether the Commissioner had taken an irrelevant consideration into account when deciding to discontinue the review process. Additionally, the court examined whether the AIC should be named as the respondent instead of the delegate who made the decision, considering the effect of s 34AB(1)(c) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). Furthermore, the court assessed the grounds for closed court, non-publication, and suppression orders.

The court reasoned that it was appropriate to name the statutory office holder, the AIC, as the respondent in the litigation. This approach minimised the personal nature of the litigation and facilitated easier recognition of the general class of cases. The court found that the delegate's decision to discontinue the review was influenced by irrelevant considerations, specifically Mr Giddings' objections to the publication of the decision. The court held that the word "generally" in s 55K(8) of the FOI Act indicated that the Commissioner's decisions should be published to the general public, which aligns with the Act's educative purposes of promoting government scrutiny.

As a result, the court ordered that the AIC be named as the respondent in place of the delegate, Ms Rocelle Ago. The interlocutory application filed by Mr Giddings on 21 March 2017 was refused, but his application was granted in part. The decision of the delegate to discontinue the consideration of Mr Giddings' application was set aside, and the application was remitted to the AIC to be heard and determined according to law. The application was otherwise dismissed.