Legal Research
Cases
Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Link copied

Case Copied 4 October 1983 34 min read

Contents

On this page

Re: JENNIFER MAY McDONALD HARRIS
And: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION AND KEITH CAMERON MACKRIELL AND
MICHAEL H. COSBY (1983) 78 FLR 236
No. G189 of 1983
Administrative Law - Crown

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Beaumont J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Decision to grant access to interim reports under Freedom of Information Act - Allegation that reports are exempt documents within meaning of Act - Exemption as "internal working documents" within meaning of s.36 or otherwise exempt under ss.40 and 43 - Whether disclosure of reports would be contrary to the public interest - Claim that access to the reports should be deferred under s.21(1) - relief limited so as to prevent disclosure of material other than purely factual material.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 s.5

Freedom of Information Act, 1982 ss. 3, 14, 15, 18, 21(1), 27, 36, 40(b), 40(c), 43(c)

Ombudsman Act, 1976 s.8(1)

Crown - Freedom of information legislation - Right of access to interim reports investigating department of Australian Broadcasting Corporation - Whether reports exempt - Whether disclosure contrary to public policy - Whether reports by "scientific or technical" expert - Deferment of access - Judicial review of decision to grant access - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s. 5 - Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), ss 36, 40, 43.

Crown - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) - Decision to grant access to interim reports under Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) - Whether a "decision" within Act - Interim reports investigating department of corporation - Whether reports exempt - Whether disclosure contrary to public policy - Whether reports of a "scientific or technical" expert - Whether access ought to be deferred - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s. 5 - Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), ss 36, 40, 43.

HEADNOTE

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, after receiving a notice of intention to investigate from the Ombudsman, instituted an independent review of its legal department by a solicitor. The solicitor furnished two interim reports and the third respondent sought and was granted access to them under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The applicant sought a review of that decision.

Held: (1) Whilst s. 11 of the Act grants a statutory right of access to documents this is no more than a prima facie right and it is subject to the other provisions of the Act. Therefore a decision to grant access is a decision within the meaning of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

Director-General of Social Services v. Hales (1983) 47 ALR 281, affirmed.

(2) The provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, s. 36(1)(a) and (5) adopt a distinction between deliberative or policy forming processes on the one hand and purely factual investigative matters on the other.

(3) In considering whether disclosure would be "contrary to the public interest" within s. 36(1)(b) it is necessary to weigh the public interest in…

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 Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corporation 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: [1983] FCA 251
Decision Date: 04 OCTOBER 1983

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corporation involved a dispute over the disclosure of interim reports prepared by Mahla L. Pearlman for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The third respondent sought access to these reports under the Freedom of Information Act. The Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission had decided to grant unrestricted access to the reports, a decision which was challenged by the first respondent. The central legal issues revolved around whether the reports constituted exempt documents under the Act, specifically if they were internal working documents as per section 36 or exempt under sections 40 and 43, and whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Additionally, the court had to consider if access to the reports should be deferred under section 21(1), with the relief limited to purely factual material.

The court examined whether the reports were internal working documents that could be exempt from disclosure. The court considered the nature of the reports and the circumstances under which they were prepared. It was determined that the reports did not fit the definition of internal working documents and therefore were not exempt under section 36. The court also evaluated whether the reports were exempt under sections 40 and 43, but found that these sections did not apply. Furthermore, the court held that disclosure of the reports would not be contrary to the public interest. However, the court ordered that access should be limited to purely factual material, thereby setting aside the Chairman’s decision to grant unrestricted access.

In its judgment, the court set aside the Chairman's decision to grant unrestricted access to the reports. It directed that access should be given to the third respondent only to the extent of purely factual material. The court refrained from making any order as to costs and reserved general liberty to any party to apply for further relief on seven days' notice. This decision underscores the importance of balancing transparency and public interest in the context of freedom of information requests.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Order that the decision of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission made on or about 29 June, 1983 under the Freedom of Information Act, 1982, deciding to give the third respondent unrestricted access to the first and second interim reports prepared by Mahla L. Pearlman pursuant to the Commission's Terms of Reference in that behalf, be set aside.

2. Direct that the first respondent give the third respondent access to so much of the reports referred to in Order 1 as consists of purely factual material.

3. Make no order as to costs.

4. Reserve general liberty to any party to apply on seven days' notice.

Orders accordingly.

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.