Mentink v Albietz - [1999] QSC 9

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
No 630 of 1998
Brisbane
Before the Hon. Mr Justice Muir
[Mentink v Albietz]
BETWEEN:

WILFRED JAN REINIER MENTINK
Applicant
AND:

F N ALBIETZ
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (QUEENSLAND)
First Respondent

AND: QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSION
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - MUIR J.
Judgment delivered 28 January 1999

CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - review of decision of Information Commissioner (Qld) under s. 20 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) which denied applicant access to document - discretion of Court under s. 30 Judicial Review Act - whether material sought by applicant included “exempt matter” within meaning of s.44(1) Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) and fell within s.46(1)(a) of that Act - whether disclosure of document would be in breach of confidence - content of decision maker’s duty to give reasons pursuant to s.89(2) Freedom of Information Act.

Counsel: Mr W.J.R. Mentink in person
Mr G. Sorensen for the first respondent
Mr S.J. Lee for the second respondent

Solicitors: Mr W.J.R. Mentink in person
Mr P.H. Shoyer for the first respondent
The Crown Solicitor for the second respondent

Hearing date: 5 January 1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
No 630 of 1998
Brisbane
Before the Hon. Mr Justice Muir
[Mentink v Albietz]
BETWEEN:

WILFRED JAN REINIER MENTINK
Applicant
AND:

F N ALBIETZ
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (QUEENSLAND)
First Respondent

AND: QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSION
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - MUIR J.
Judgment delivered 28 January 1999

In September 1993 the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of maintaining a sexual relationship with a minor and to indecently dealing with another minor. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine years for the former offence and to a term of one year for the latter. On appeal the nine year term was reduced to six years. The applicant was released on parole in late November 1996.
The applicant seeks to review a decision of the first respondent (the Information Commissioner (Qld)) communicated in a letter of the first respondent to the applicant dated 1 December 1997. The decision was one reviewing a decision by the second respondent (the Queensland Corrective Services Commission) of 18 January 1995 to deny the applicant access to certain pages of the “professional management file” (“the file”) kept by the second respondent, in respect of the applicant as a prisoner. Prior to 1 December 1997 the first respondent had, as part of the process of an application for review made by the applicant, decided that parts of the file had been erroneously withheld by the second respondent from the applicant. The applicant was then given access to those parts. The applicant presses for full disclosure of the contents of the materials the subject of this application, namely -
(a)pages 145-147 of the file, being a letter dated 28 March 1994 to the then Attorney-General from the Principal of the Gordonvale State High School and another person (“the principal’s letter”);
(b)page 148 of the file, being a letter from the then Minister…

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 Mentink v Albietz 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: [1999] QSC 9
Decision Date: 28 January 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mentink v Albietz involved an application for judicial review brought by Wilfred Jan Reinier Mentink against the Information Commissioner of Queensland and the Queensland Corrective Services Commission. The applicant, who had been convicted of maintaining a sexual relationship with a minor and indecently dealing with another minor, sought access to certain documents held by the Queensland Corrective Services Commission that were part of his "professional management file." The Information Commissioner had previously reviewed a decision by the Queensland Corrective Services Commission to deny the applicant access to certain pages of this file, and the applicant sought to challenge this decision further. The specific documents in question were a letter from the Principal of Gordonvale State High School and another individual to the Attorney-General, a letter from the then Minister for Justice to the Minister for Police, and a letter from the parents of one of the complainants to the General Manager of the Moreton Correctional Centre.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the documents in question were "exempt matter" under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) and whether disclosure of the documents would breach confidence. The court also considered whether the Information Commissioner provided adequate reasons for his decision as required by the Act. The court exercised its discretion under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) to refuse the applicant's request for disclosure of the documents. The court found that the Information Commissioner's decision was correct, and there was no material benefit to the applicant in obtaining access to the documents now, especially considering the potential for harm to the privacy of victims and their families. The court also determined that the applicant's arguments regarding breach of confidence and lack of clean hands were without merit.

The court concluded that the Information Commissioner's decision to deny access to the documents was justified and dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review. The court emphasized that the reasons provided by the Information Commissioner were sufficient to indicate why the decision was made, fulfilling the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. The court found no legal error in the Information Commissioner's determination and upheld the decision not to disclose the requested documents.

Orders