Pollentine and Anor v The Honourable Jarrod Pieter Bleijie Attorney-General for the State of Queensland and Ors

The applicants, Pollentine and Anor, sought judicial review of decisions made by the respondent, the Honourable Jarrod Pieter Bleijie, Attorney-General for the State of Queensland, and other respondents. The dispute concerned the Attorney-General's refusal to grant the applicants' requests for access to certain documents. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Attorney-General's decisions to refuse access to the requested documents were amenable to judicial review. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Attorney-General's exercise of discretion under the relevant legislation, in refusing access, was subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts.

Kiefel J, in delivering the judgment, considered the nature of the discretion conferred upon the Attorney-General. His Honour found that the discretion was not unfettered and that the Attorney-General was required to exercise it according to law. However, His Honour concluded that the decisions in question were not of a character that attracted the supervisory jurisdiction of the court. The refusal to grant access was found to be an exercise of a statutory power that did not give rise to a justiciable controversy amenable to judicial review.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.