Konieczka v South Australian Police

Konieczka appealed to the District Court against a decision by the South Australian Police (SAP) to refuse access to certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1991. The appeal centred on the SAP’s refusal to provide certain documents on the grounds of potential substantial adverse effects on police operations and the disclosure of lawful methods and procedures. The court was required to determine whether the SAP had correctly applied the exemption criteria set out in Clauses 4 and 16 of Schedule 1 to the Act.

The court found that the SAP had not justified their refusal of access to any of the documents on the basis of Clause 16, which pertains to substantial adverse effects on police operations. The court held that the "substantial adverse effect" test is notably higher than the test set out in Clause 4. For Policy 42 – Domestic Violence Prosecutions, the court affirmed the police determination due to the disclosure of certain deleted portions, which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effectiveness of lawful methods and procedures. However, for the Restraining Orders document, the court found that neither of the deleted passages satisfied the criteria for exemption, and ordered the SAP to provide access to these passages. The court also found that most passages in the Domestic Disputes document met the exemption criteria, except for two specific passages, which were not exempt. Finally, for the Crime Reporting Manual, the court identified several passages relevant to Konieczka’s request that did not meet the exemption criteria and ordered the SAP to provide access to these passages.

The court allowed the appeal in part, affirming the SAP's decision in certain respects but ordering access to specific passages in other documents.