Priebe v SA Police
[2007] SADC 119
•20 November 2007
DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Appeal Under Freedom of Information Act)
PRIEBE v SA POLICE
[2007] SADC 119
Judgment of His Honour Judge Boylan
20 November 2007
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - GENERALLY
Appeal under s40 of the Freedom of Information Act 1991 - Respondent refused to give Applicant access to various documents pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Concepts of "unreasonableness", "Personal affairs" and "Personal qualities" dismissed.
Freedom of Information Act 1991; District Court Act 1991, referred to.
D Chandra & Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1984) 6 ALD 257, considered.
PRIEBE v SA POLICE
[2007] SADC 119
SAPOL has refused to give Mr Priebe access to various documents which he had sought pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1991.
For some years, Mr and Mrs Priebe lived at 9 Staplehurst Lane, Greenhill. Their immediate neighbours, at number 8, were Ms A.N. Vihervaara and her then partner, Mr Abo-Baka Nasr. Between November 2001 and May 2004 the two couples were involved in a long and bitter dispute about use of land, in particular, about the use of an access road and about rights of way. Other neighbours also became involved as did a builder and labourers who performed work at number 8. The police became involved: allegations of assault were made and applications were made for restraining orders. Eventually, Mr and Mrs Priebe moved and the dispute ended, but Mr Priebe is anxious to know how the complaints made to the police, both by him and about him, were handled. To that end, he applied to SAPOL, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1991, to see a large number of documents. SAPOL has given him access to many but has refused access to others. This is Mr Priebe’s appeal against that refusal.
There are two lots of documents. The first comprises fifteen documents which SAPOL has refused to release on the basis that they are exempt documents. The second lot comprises some one hundred documents. SAPOL does not claim that those documents are exempt but it maintains that relevant third parties may object to the release of those documents to Mr Priebe. I heard submissions from some of those third parties on this appeal. That was an unusual course but neither Dr Bleby nor Mrs Hughes objected to it. It was a sensible course and, in my view, within the spirit of s 42E of the District Court Act 1991.
In considering the matters raised on this appeal I have borne in mind the following matters. This is a merits appeal. The onus is on SAPOL to justify its refusal. Mr Priebe has a legally enforceable right to have access to the documents in SAPOL’s possession and SAPOL must give him access unless the documents are exempt. Production of the documents is to the world at large and Mr Priebe’s motive for wanting access to them is irrelevant.
SAPOL refused Mr Priebe access to the documents on the basis that the documents are exempt from disclosure because disclosure of them would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information concerning the personal affairs of people mentioned in the documents or, because the documents contain allegations or suggestions of improper conduct on the part of a person mentioned in them, the truth of which has not been established by judicial process and the disclosure of which would be unreasonable (see Clauses 6(1) and (2) in the First Schedule to the Act).
I must decide whether or not the documents are indeed exempt. That is, I must decide if they meet the criteria set out in Clauses 6(1) and (2) of the First Schedule to the Act. In doing that exercise I have borne in mind the objects of the Act and the principles by which it is to be administered. The objects are set out in s 3. They are to promote openness in Government and Government agencies thereby enhancing respect for the law and further good government of the State. The Act is to be interpreted and applied so as to further its stated objects and the Parliament intends that this Court, on an appeal such as this, should exercise its discretion in a way that favours disclosure of information that can be disclosed without infringing the right to privacy of the various individuals the subject of the documents, namely, Mr Priebe’s various neighbours, the builder and labourers who worked at number 8 and police officers who became involved in the dispute.
In determining the meaning of “personal affairs” in the context of each of the relevant documents, I have borne in mind the definition in s 4 of the Act. That definition is inclusive not exclusive.
In considering the concept of “unreasonableness” I have been assisted by the decision of Deputy President Hall in D Chandra & Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs[1]. There, the Deputy President said:
“Whether a disclosure is “unreasonable” requires, in my view, the consideration of all the circumstances, including the nature of the information that will be disclosed, the circumstances in which the information was obtained, the likelihood of the information being information that the person concerned would not wish to have disclosed without consent, and whether the information has any current relevance. Plainly enough what [the relevant section] seeks to do is to provide a ground for preventing unreasonable invasion of the privacy of third parties.
However, consistently with the stated object of the Act (see s 3) it is also necessary in my view to take into consideration the public interest recognised by the Act in the disclosure of information in documentary form in the possession of an agency and to weigh that interest in the balance against the public interest of protecting the personal privacy of a third party whose personal affairs may be unreasonably disclosed by granting access to the document.”
[1] (1984) 6 ALD 257
I turn, then, to the documents. They have been made available to me by way of exhibits to a “closed” affidavit of Phillip Michael Chandler, the officer at SAPOL who handled Mr Priebe’s application. I have examined each of the documents against the criteria for exemption. I now set out my conclusions.
The first document, numbered PMC-3 in Mr Chandler’s affidavit, is an offender history report. It is in the standard form for such reports. It contains the usual personal particulars about the person the subject of the report including a physical description. It contains the subject’s current address together with a list of former addresses. It also contains information relevant to hearing dates for any matters currently before a court and it contains information about prior convictions, together with penalties imposed in respect of them. In my view, the contents of the document relate to the subject’s personal affairs. I include as personal affairs the record of former addresses and information about whether the subject has any prior court appearances and, if so, for what offences, and penalties imposed in respect of them. I note that, in his affidavit, Mr Chandler asserts that an offender history report does not contain criminal records. “Criminal records” is listed under the inclusive definition of “personal affairs” in the Act. It may be that Mr Chandler means that this offender history report does not contain criminal records. In my view, any document which contains a record of court appearances, even if they relate only to minor traffic or administrative offences, constitutes a record of personal affairs. To put it another way, I would not construe the expression “criminal records” in the Act narrowly so that it refers only to serious or more serious offences. I say that even though, in the case of adults, such offences will normally have been in the public domain at the time they were dealt with in the courts.
Accordingly, in my view, document number 9 marked PMC –3 is a record of its subject’s personal affairs.
Is it unreasonable to disclose the document? In answering that question, I have particularly taken into account whether or not the subject of the report would wish it to be disclosed without consent. In my view the subject would not wish to have the contents of the report disclosed even though the information contained in it could be described as “bland”. Records of prior court appearances and, indeed, records of prior addresses are personal matters and I think it would be unreasonable to disclose the information.
The next document, PMC-4, is a computer printout containing a summary of some, but not all, of the details in PMC-3. That document, too, relates to the personal affairs of its subject. I affirm SAPOL’s decision not to release either of those documents to Mr Priebe.
The next six documents are PMC-5 to PMC-10. All of them have been released in part to Mr Priebe. The unreleased portions in each of them are about the propriety of a constable’s behaviour in issuing restraining orders.
Mr Priebe wanted officers at the Norwood Police Station to issue restraining orders against Ms Vihervaara and Mr Nasr. They refused to do so. A constable at the Holden Hill Police Station then issued the orders but, before a Magistrate had confirmed them, other police officers decided that orders were not justified and withdrew them. Senior SAPOL officers questioned the constable about the propriety of the constable’s actions in issuing the restraining orders.
SAPOL claims that the documents are exempt on two grounds. First, SAPOL claims that disclosure of the documents would be unreasonable disclosure of the constable’s personal affairs. Secondly, says SAPOL, the documents contain allegations or suggestions of improper conduct by the constable the truth of which has not been established by judicial process and the disclosure of which would be unreasonable.
I do not think that the documents are exempt on either ground.
SAPOL argues that the unreleased portions concern the constable’s personal affairs because they contain information about the constable’s employment records and personal qualities or attributes.
I deal first with “employment records”. I do not think it is without significance that the definition of “personal affairs” in s 4 includes employment records, not employment record. That is, the plural is significant. In the context of employment, the words “record” and “records” do not have the same meaning. For example, a prospective employer may ask a previous employer about a job applicant “What’s his record”. Usually, neither of them would expect the answer to be contained within the applicant’s employment records. It seems to me that “employment records” means that information, however preserved and stored, which pertains to the constable’s status or position as an employee of SAPOL. That is, they relate to the fact of employment, not to the way in which the constable performed his or her duties during the course of employment. Employment records will include, for example, such details as name, age and date of birth, address, next of kin, records of leave taken, of leave accrued, applications for promotion and, perhaps, opinions of other officers about the constable’s performance of duties. Employment records may well include, if a constable has acted improperly and has been cautioned or reprimanded, a record of that fact. But, in my view, employment records do not include accounts of a constable’s performance of his or her public duty in documents prepared in the normal course of a police investigation or prosecution. None of the deleted portions of documents PMC-5 to PMC-10 refer to the constable’s employment records.
Do any of the deleted portions refer to the constable’s personal qualities or attributes? They do not do so directly, but a reader could possibly infer from the contents how the constable performed his or her duties. That is, the reader may be able to infer the constable’s attitude to work. Does an inference of, say, diligence on the constable’s part amount to disclosure of the constable’s personal qualities or attributes? I think not. If it were otherwise, any reference to an officer’s performance of duty from which an inference could be made about the officer’s attitude to work would be exempt. Such an interpretation would defeat the objects of the Act.
None of the unreleased portions in the documents PMC-5 to PMC-10 contain information relating to the constable’s personal affairs. If I am wrong about that I would still hold that the documents are not exempt because disclosure of them would not be unreasonable. It would not involve an invasion of the constable’s privacy and even if it did, the public interest in disclosure of the reason for withdrawing issued warrants outweighs the private interests of the constable.
I turn then to the second limb of SAPOL’s claim for exemption. Read in isolation the unreleased parts of each of these documents contain suggestions that the constable acted improperly in issuing the warrants. The suggested impropriety has never been established by judicial process. It never would have been so established because senior officers investigated the suggestion of impropriety and it proved unfounded. The constable was exonerated. When the six documents, including the unreleased portions, are read together no suggestion of impropriety remains. In my view, I am not obliged to consider each document in isolation when determining whether SAPOL’s claim for exemption is justified. To do so would again be to defeat the policy of the Act. Mr Priebe has effectively asked for a set of documents about the issue and withdrawal of the restraining orders. Those documents, read as a set, do not contain any suggestion of impropriety. They are not exempt and Mr Priebe should be given access to them.
I come now to the last of the documents which SAPOL has refused to release to Mr Priebe on the basis that it is exempt. The document is number PMC-15. SAPOL has claimed that the document is exempt on the basis that it contains a suggestion of unlawful conduct or impropriety which has not been established by judicial process and the disclosure of which would be unreasonable. Only one portion of the document has not been released.
The circumstances surrounding the document are these: In March 2003, Mr Priebe was arrested and charged with offences of assault. Ultimately, SAPOL tendered no evidence and the charges were dismissed. Document number PMC-15 is a note by a police prosecutor who was handling the prosecution. The unreleased portion is a note made by the prosecutor about a prospective witness in the trial. It contains a suggestion that a court had made a finding that the prospective witness had acted improperly in other proceedings. I have read the relevant judgments in the Magistrates’ Court. They contain no finding, nor, indeed, any suggestion that the relevant person had acted improperly. It seems, from what I read in one of the third party documents, that the note is no more than a record of an assertion made to the Prosecutor by a solicitor acting for Mr Priebe. I agree with SAPOL that the unreleased portion is exempt pursuant to Clause 6(2) of the First Schedule in the Freedom of Information Act 1991. I affirm SAPOL’s decision not to release it.
I turn now to the second lot of documents, that lot comprising some one hundred documents in respect of nearly all of which SAPOL has not claimed exemption but maintains that various third parties may object to the release of the documents. As I said earlier, I heard from two of the third parties at the hearing of the appeal. I have seen the basis of the objections of all third parties to the release of the documents that the disclosure of them is exempt because such disclosure would be unreasonable disclosure of the personal affairs of the third parties. I have examined each document separately. In my view, the documents do not contain information relating to the personal affairs of the parties except where some personal details such as ages, addresses, telephone numbers and dates of birth have been included. There are a couple of documents in which other matters, properly described as personal affairs, are included. In case there is any doubt about my rulings I have dealt with each document separately but briefly. I give each document the various description of it which appears in the table following paragraph 163 of Mr Chandler’s open affidavit.
Paragraph /
SubparagraphDocument In dispute because third party objects Exhibit No. in Second Closed Affidavit
1.1 11 Yes-cl.6(1)- Ms Vihervaara PMC74 Release in full
1.1 18 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC75 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s date of birth
1.2 8 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC76 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s date of birth
1.2 10 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC77 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s date of birth, age, personal description, telephone number and occupation
1.2 11 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC78 Release in full
1.2 13 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC79 Release in full
1.2 14 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC80 Release in full
1.2 15 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC81 Release in full
1.2 16 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC82 Release in full 1.2 17 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC83 Release in full
1.3 3 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara
Ms Nasr (SAPOL objects to disclosure of those parts of this document that relates to the constable)PMC84 Release in full. This is the same document as one in respect of which SAPOL claimed exemption 1.3 11 Yes – cl.6(1) Mr Nasr PMC85 Release in full
1.4 3 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC86 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s date of birth, age, telephone number and occupation and except for Mr Munn’s date of birth, age, address, telephone number and occupation
1.4 4 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC87 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s date of birth, age and telephone number
1.4 5 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC88 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’a date of birth, age and telephone number 1.4 6 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC89 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’a date of birth, age and telephone number
1.4 7 Yes-clause 6(1) – Mr Nasr PMC90 Release except for Mr Nasr’s date of birth, age, telephone numbers, address and occupation 1.4 8 Yes-clause 6(1) – Mr Nasr PMC91 Release except for Mr Nasr’s age, date of birth, telephone numbers and address
1.4 9 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC92 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’a date of birth, age and occupation
1.4 10 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC93 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’a date of birth and age
1.4 11 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC94 Release in full but I note that this document appears to contain details of police investigations completely unrelated to Mr Priebe’s application
1.4 12 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC95 Release in full
1.4 13 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC96 Release in full
1.4 14 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC97 Release in full
1.4 15 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC98 Release in full
1.4 16 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC99 Release in full
1.4 17 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC100 Release in full
1.4 18 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC101 Release in full
1.4 19 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC102 Release in full
1.5 1 Yes – cl.6(1) – Mr Sieben PMC103 Release in full
1.5 2 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara,
Mr Colin Munn, Mr Richard Munn, Mr SiebenPMC104 Release except for Mr Munn’s address 1.5 4.1 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara,
Mr Colin MunnPMC105 Release in full 1.5 4.2 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC106 Release in full
1.5 5, page 2 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC107 Release in full
1.5 5, page 3 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC108 Release in full
1.5 5, page 4 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC109 Release in full
1.5 7, page 1 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara,
Mr Colin Munn, Mr Richard Munn, Mr SiebenPMC110 Release in full 1.5 7, page 3 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara,
Mr Richard MunnPMC111 Except for lines 9 and 10 in the section headed “Remarks/actions” in my view these lines are exempt pursuant to Clause 6(2). 1.5 7, Page 4 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC112 Release in full
1.5 7, page 5 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC113 Release in full
1.5 7, page 6 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC114 Release in full
1.5 7, page 7 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC115 Release in full
1.5 7, page 9 Yes-cl.6(1)-Mr Colin Munn PMC116 Release in full 1.5 7, page 10 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara,
Mr Colin Munn, Mr Richard Munn, Mr SiebenPMC117 Release in full 1.5 9 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC118 Release in full 1.5 10 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC119 Release in full
1.5 11 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara,
Mr Colin Munn, Mr Richard Munn, Mr SiebenPMC120 Release in full 1.5 13 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara,
Mr Colin Munn, Mr Richard MunnPMC121 Release except for (1) The sentence immediately following the words “… started building their house a few years ago”. In my view that sentence is exempt pursuant to Clause 6(1); and except for (2) Ms Vihervaara’s age and, description and except for (3) the ages and, descriptions of the two men referred to in the sentence which I have excluded above. 1.5 14 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC122 Release in full
1.5 19 Yes-cl.6(1) PMC123 Not to be released. This is a victim impact statement and, in my view, the contents of such a statement relate to the subject’s personal affairs and it would not be reasonable to disclose them. 1.5 20 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC124 Not to be released. This document is a victim impact statement and is exempt as it relates to the subject’s personal affairs and it would not be reasonable to disclose them. 1.5 21 Yes-cl.6(1)-Mr Sieben PMC125 Release except Mr Sieben’s address
1.5 23 Yes-cl.6(1)-Mr Colin Munn PMC126 Release in full
1.5 25 Yes-cl.6(1) - Mr Richard Munn PMC127 Release in full 1.5 26 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC128 Release in full
1.5 28 Yes-cl.6(1)-Mr Sieben PMC129 Release except for Mr Sieben’s address, date of birth and telephone number 1.5 29 Yes-cl.6(1)-Mr Colin Munn PMC130 Release except for Mr Munn’s date of birth, address, telephone number, occupation and the address of his employer, Mr Sieben.
1.5 31 Yes-cl.6(1) - Mr Richard Munn PMC131 Release except for Mr Munn’s date of birth, address, telephone number and occupation.
1.5 49.1, page2 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara, Mr Colin Munn, Mr Richard Munn, Mr Sieben PMC132 Release except for the dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers and fax numbers of Mr Sieben, Mr Richard Munn, Mr Colin Munn and Ms Wooters.
1.5 60 Yes-cl.6(1)-Mr Colin Munn PMC133 Release except for Mr Munn’s date of birth and address
1.5 61 Yes-cl.6(1)- Mr Sieben PMC134 Release except for Mr Steen’s date of birth and address. I assume that this is a reference to Mr Sieben.
1.5 62 Yes-cl.6(1) – Mr Richard Munn PMC135 Release except for Mr Munn’s date of birth and address
1.5 63 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC136 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s date of birth
1.5 69 Yes-cl.6(1)-Mr Colin Munn PMC137 Release except for Mr Munn’s age, date of birth, address, telephone number and occupation
1.5 70 Yes-cl.6(1)-Mr Colin Munn PMC138 Release except for Mr Munn’s age, date of birth, address, telephone number and occupation
Paragraph 2 1 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC139 This is a photocopy of the details marked on an audiocassette tape. The document can be released in full. I make no order about the contents of the tape as I have not heard it.
2 2 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC140 Release in full.
2 10 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC141Release except for the two pages under the heading Offender History Report. I have already ruled that those two pages are exempt pursuant to Clause 6(2). I also exclude Ms Vihervaara’s age, date of birth, telephone number and occupation where those details occur elsewhere in the document. I also exclude Ms Vihervaara’s description where it appears in the document
2 11 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC142 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s date of birth
2 12 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC143 Release in full except for Ms Vihervaara’s age, date of birth, telephone number, occupation and description 2 14 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC144 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s date of birth
2 15 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC145 Release in full
2 17 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC146 Release in full
2 24 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara and Mr Nasr and SAPOL PMC147 Release in full. This, again, is one of the documents in respect of which SAPOL claimed exemption
2 29 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara and Mr Nasr – SAPOL claiming also PMC148 Release in full. This is another copy of that same document in respect of which SAPOL claimed exemption
2 31 Yes-cl.6(1)-Mr Nasr PMC149 Release except for Mr Nasr’s date of birth
2 32 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC150 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s date of birth
2 34 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC151 Release in full
2 35 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC152 This document is a photocopy of details recorded on an audiocassette tape. The document can be released in full. I make no order with respect to the contents of the tape as I have not heard it. 2 36 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC153 Release in full
2 37 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC154 Release in full
2 38 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC155 Release in full
2 42 Yes-cl.6(1) - Mr Colin Munn, Mr Richard Munn, Mr Sieben PMC156 Release except for the dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers and occupations of Mr Richard Munn and Mr Colin Munn
2 43 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC157 Release in full
2 49 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC158 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s telephone number
2 50 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC159 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s date of birth and place of birth
2 51 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara and Mr Nasr PMC160 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s and Mr Nasr’s ages, dates of birth, telephone numbers and occupations and, in Mr Nasr’s case, his work address. 2 52 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC161 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s age, date of birth and telephone numbers. 2 60 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC162 Release in full
2 61 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC163 Release in full
2 62 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC164 Release in full
2 64 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC165 Release except for the second sentence in paragraph 1 2 70 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC166 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s date of birth 2 71 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC167 Release except for Ms Vihervaara’s date of birth 2 72 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC168 Release in full
2 73 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC169 Release in full
2 74 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC170 Release in full
2 75 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC171 Release in full
2 76 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC172 Release in full
2 77 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC173 Release in full but I note that this document appears to contain entries about police investigations unrelated to Mr Priebe’s application 2 78 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC174 Release in full
2 79 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC175 Release in full
2 80 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC176 Release except for Mr Munn’s address and description
2 83 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC177 Release in full
2 89 Yes-cl.6(1)-Ms Vihervaara PMC178 Release in full
Mr Priebe is to be given access to those documents, or parts of them, in accordance with these reasons.
3
0
1