Klaric v Commissioner of Police

Case [2020] NSWCATAD 47

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Klaric v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 47
Hearing dates: 9 May 2019, 7 August 2019
Date of orders: 10 February 2020
Decision date: 10 February 2020
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: K Ransome, Senior Member
Decision:

(1)   The Tribunal notes that the information sought by the applicant in Item 25 was released to the applicant during the hearing.
(2)   The Tribunal also notes that the information redacted from the cover sheet of the s150 pdf file referred to in Item was agreed to be released to the applicant.
(3)   The decision of the respondent is otherwise affirmed.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review - Government Information – refusal to deal with application – whether agency has already decided previous application for same information – whether no reasonable grounds for believing agency would make a different decision – adequacy of searches

  ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review - Government Information – balancing the public interest
Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited: Amos v Central Coast Council [2018] NSWCATAD 101
Applicants v Commissioner of Police [2015] NSWCATAD 22
Attorney-General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180
Australian Vaccination Network v Department of Finance and Services [2013] NSWADT 60
Camilleri v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 5
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri (GD) [2012] NSWADATP 19
Cianfrano v Director General Department of Commerce (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195
Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
McClymont v Department of Family and Community Services [2017] NSWCATAD 202
McLachlan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 109
McMillan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force; Brady v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 53
Miriani v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2005] NSWADT 187
Robinson v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAP 73
Mizzi v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 150
Saggers v Environment Protection Authority [2013] NSWADT 109
Sheehy v Commissioner of Police; Rapisarda v Commissioner of Police; McDonald v Commissioner of Police; Housego v Commissioner of Police [2018] NSWCATAD 73
Shepherd and Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning (1994) 1 QAR 464
Webb v Port Stephens Council [2018] NSWCATAP 224
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Grozdan Klaric (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (Self Represented)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/00007268
Publication restriction: Section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies to the material filed by the respondents on a confidential basis, to those paragraphs of these reasons identified as [Not for publication], to the evidence given in private before the Tribunal and to the record of that part of the proceedings conducted in private pursuant to s 49. That material is not to be released to either the applicant or to the public.

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. Mr Grozdan Klaric made an…

Continue reading Klaric v Commissioner of Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Klaric v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 47
Case
[2020] NSWCATAD 47
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Klaric v Commissioner of Police, the applicant sought an administrative review of a decision by the respondent to refuse a request for information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA). The applicant, seeking information about a police investigation, claimed the refusal was unjustifiable. The matter was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The primary legal issues were whether the agency had already decided a previous application for the same information, and if there were no reasonable grounds for believing the agency would make a different decision on the same request. Additionally, the adequacy of the searches conducted was contested.

The AAT examined whether the agency had already decided the previous application and found that the applicant's previous application was different, thus no prior decision existed. Regarding the second issue, the AAT held that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe it would make a different decision due to the differences in the applications. The adequacy of the searches was scrutinised, and the Tribunal concluded that the searches were reasonable given the circumstances. The balancing of the public interest was also considered, and the AAT found the respondent’s decision to be within the scope of its discretion.

The AAT affirmed the decision of the respondent, with some minor orders regarding the release of specific information. The Tribunal noted that the information sought in Item 25 was released to the applicant during the hearing, and the redactions agreed upon were also to be released. The decision was otherwise affirmed, upholding the respondent's refusal to release the requested information.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Tribunal notes that the information sought by the applicant in Item 25 was released to the applicant during the hearing.

(2) The Tribunal also notes that the information redacted from the cover sheet of the s150 pdf file referred to in Item was agreed to be released to the applicant.

(3) The decision of the respondent is otherwise 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.