Jones and Australian Federal Police (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an application for review by Mr Jones of the Australian Federal Police's (AFP) decision not to grant him full access to documents relating to a Professional Standards Investigation. The AFP had claimed that the documents were conditionally exempt from disclosure under the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth) (FOI Act). The review was heard by Dr James Popple, Senior Member.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the documents were exempt from disclosure under various provisions of the FOI Act. Specifically, the AFP contended that the documents were conditionally exempt under s 47E(c) and (d) of the FOI Act, relating to substantial adverse effects on personnel management and the proper and efficient conduct of agency operations, respectively. Additionally, the AFP argued for exemptions under s 37(1)(b) (confidential sources), s 37(2)(b) (investigative methods), s 47C (deliberative matter), s 47F (unreasonable disclosure of personal information), and s 47G (adverse effect on business or professional affairs). The Tribunal was required to determine if these exemptions applied and, for the conditionally exempt documents, whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal affirmed the AFP's decision. In relation to s 47E(c) and (d), the Tribunal accepted the AFP's assertion that the documents were created for and related to a Professional Standards investigation into an AFP appointee concerning allegations of a threat of violence and inappropriate language. The Tribunal noted that the AFP Professional Standards unit is established under the *Australian Federal Police Act 1979* (Cth) to investigate serious misconduct and corruption issues. The Tribunal also acknowledged the existence of AFP Commissioner's Orders and provisions within the AFP Act that prohibit the disclosure of information obtained during such investigations, except in specific circumstances, reinforcing the AFP's argument that disclosure could adversely affect personnel management and the efficient conduct of its operations. The onus was on the AFP to establish the justification for its decision.

The decision of the Australian Federal Police on 3 June 2015 was affirmed.