Patrick and Secretary, Department of Defence (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an application for freedom of information access to letters sent to Australian Defence Force personnel rescinding awards. The applicant sought access to these letters, while the Secretary of the Department of Defence argued for their exemption under conditional exemptions within the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth). The dispute centred on whether disclosure of the letters would have a substantial adverse effect on the management of personnel or the efficient conduct of the Department's operations, and whether such disclosure would involve an unreasonable disclosure of personal information.

The court was required to determine if the conditional exemptions under sections 47E(c) and (d) of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* applied. Specifically, it needed to assess whether the disclosure of the letters would reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel, or on the proper and efficient conduct of the Department's operations. The court also considered whether disclosure would involve an unreasonable disclosure of personal information and, ultimately, whether disclosure was in or contrary to the public interest, taking into account the applicant's willingness to accept redacted versions of the documents.

The court accepted the evidence of Rear Admiral Wolski, who testified about the importance of command structures and accountability within the ADF. He explained that the command accountability process, including the issuance of these letters, was conducted under strict confidence due to the sensitive nature of the matters and the potential for psychological harm, particularly while issues remained unresolved. The court applied the interpretation of "could reasonably be expected" as requiring more than a mere assumption of damage, and "substantial adverse effect" as an effect sufficiently serious to cause concern to a reasonable person. Despite the applicant's argument that much of the information was already in the public domain, the court gave greater weight to the need for confidentiality to maintain the effectiveness and integrity of current and future command accountability processes.

On balance, the court found that the disclosure of the letters, even in a redacted form, would be contrary to the public interest. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, which had affirmed the original decision to refuse access to the documents.