Johnston and Australian Postal Corporation - [2005] AATA 34

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 34
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2004/156

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re MALCOLM JOHNSTON

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member Peter M McDermott
Date17 January 2005
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
The Tribunal decides to:-

(i)   Affirm the decision under review;

(ii)     Return Documents 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 to the respondent

(iii)    Annexures A to D of the affidavit of Andrius Caprackas sworn on 29 October 2004 (Exhibit 4) remain sealed on the file until any further order.

.….[Sgd]……
PM McDermott
Senior Member

(i) Internal e-mail messages
Document 1
15.     Document 1 includes numerous internal e-mail messages between 5 February 2003 and 12 August 2003 that comprise 27 pages. These have been partially released by the respondent except for 11 pages containing what the respondent claims to be certain personal information about persons other than the applicant and three pieces of correspondence attached to three of the emails.
16.     I have examined those email messages. Most of the content of the emails have been released to the applicant. The names of certain officers who object to the disclosure of their names have been deleted.
17.     The documents contain personal information about persons other than the applicant. The Tribunal has held that the disclosure of names of individuals would be the disclosure of personal information: see Re Schofield and ACT Workcover (2000) 61 ALD 238; Re Ward and Centrelink [2004] AATA 761.
18.     I consider that it would not be reasonable to make disclosure of these names of the individuals: see section 41. In coming to this conclusion I have taken into account that they object to the disclosure of their names. I also considered the object of the legislation in making available to the public information about the affairs of public authorities: see Freedom of Information Act 1982, section 3(1)(a). This object would not be advanced by the disclosure of the names of the officers. The mere names of the officers have in this case no demonstrable relevance to the affairs of government: cf, Re Cristovao and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1998) 53 ALD 138, 123.
(ii) Ministerial correspondence
19.     Documents 1, 2, 6 and 8 are all internal working documents of the agency that relate to the consideration by the agency of the Ministerial representation.
Document 1
20.     Document 1 contains material relating to draft correspondence for consideration by the Minister.
Document 2
21.     Document 2 is a document dated 7 February 2003 from Mr Stephen McMahon to Mr Michael Barbour. This is an internal memorandum advising of a receipt of a representation by Mr Rudd MP to Senator Alston. Most of this document has been released to the applicant except for certain opinions comprising personal or professional information about a person other than the applicant as well as some internal working comments.
Document 6
22.     Document 6 is a document dated 9 July 2003 from Mr Stephen McMahon to…

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 Johnston and Australian Postal 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: [2005] AATA 34
Decision Date: 17 January 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Johnston lodged a request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 with the Australian Postal Corporation. Disputes arose over whether certain exemptions applied to the documents, particularly those under sections 59 and 71 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the exemptions applied and if the documents should be disclosed. The tribunal also had to consider relevant legal precedents, including Electronic Frontiers Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority, and the applicability of the aforementioned acts and sections.

The tribunal's central legal issue was whether the exemptions under sections 59 and 71 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 applied to the documents in question, thereby barring their disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. This required a careful analysis of the language and intent of the exemptions, as well as their interaction with the overarching purpose of the Freedom of Information Act. The tribunal needed to balance the public interest in transparency against the privacy and safety considerations protected by the exemptions.

Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the tribunal determined that the exemptions did apply to certain documents, thus barring their disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. This conclusion was based on the tribunal's interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions and its consideration of the precedents cited, including Re Schofield and ACT Workcover and Re Cristovao and Secretary, Department of Social Security. The tribunal affirmed the decision under review, ordered the return of specific documents to the respondent, and sealed certain annexures until further order.

The tribunal's final orders included affirming the decision under review, returning specified documents to the respondent, and maintaining the sealed status of certain annexures. This decision underscores the tribunal's role in balancing public interest with legislative protections, reflecting a nuanced understanding of the interplay between different acts and the importance of judicial review in ensuring compliance with the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal decides to:-

(i) Affirm the decision under review;

(ii) Return Documents 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 to the respondent

(iii) Annexures A to D of the affidavit of Andrius Caprackas sworn on 29 October 2004 (Exhibit 4) remain sealed on the file until any further order.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		MALCOLM JOHNSTON