Ocampo Alvarez and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an application for freedom of information access to documents held by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC). The applicant, Mr Ocampo Alvarez, sought access to documents, and the ACIC provided partial access, redacting certain information. The applicant contended that the redactions were unnecessary and that the ACIC had not adequately demonstrated the existence or non-existence of all requested documents. The decision was made by Deputy R I Hanger P.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the ACIC had taken all reasonable steps to identify and locate documents relevant to the applicant's request, whether certain redacted information within a specific document was irrelevant to the request, and whether the disclosure of such redacted information would be contrary to the public interest. The court also considered the applicant's submission that the ACIC should provide a formal declaration regarding the status of all requested documents.

The court accepted the evidence presented by the ACIC that all reasonable steps had been taken to identify and locate relevant documents, and that no other documents existed beyond those disclosed. Regarding document 6, which contained ACIC board meeting resolutions including consideration of a proposed intelligence operation, the court found that the redacted portions were irrelevant to the applicant's request. The court applied section 22(1)(a)(ii) of the *Freedom of Information Act*, which permits an agency to provide an edited copy of a document if it contains irrelevant information that can be deleted. The court determined that disclosing the redacted information would not be in the public interest, as it had no bearing on the applicant's request and concerned matters unrelated to the applicant.

Consequently, the court affirmed the ACIC's decision to provide partial access to the documents. The applicant's request for a formal declaration regarding the status of all documents was refused, given the court's findings that all reasonable steps had been taken to identify and disclose relevant documents.