Klaric v Commissioner of Police

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.