Rae v Commissioner of Police

Case [2020] NSWCATAD 189

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rae v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 189
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 3 August 2020
Decision date: 03 August 2020
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Gracie, Senior Member
Decision:

Affirm the respondent's Notice of Decision made under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 dated 31 January 2020.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - government

information - reviewable decision - conclusive presumption against disclosure - public interest considerations against disclosure - private rights and public interest considerations in favour of disclosure - balancing of public interests

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Civil Liability Act 2002

Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Police Act 1990

Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

Work Health and Safety Act 2011

Cases Cited:

AEZ v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 90

Betzis v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 71

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19

Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Field [2016] NSWCATAP 59

DTB v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 114

DYD v Commissioner of Police [2019] NSWCATAD 265

Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286

Hall v Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 46

Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307

JY v Commissioner for Police, NSW Police [2008] NSWADT 306.

Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298

McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 46

McLachlan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 109

Sheehy v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2018] NSWCATAD 73

Sherman v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2016] NSWCATAD 10

Smith v NSW Police Force [2015] NSWCATAD 32

Yee v Medical Council of NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 370

YG and GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Craig Anthony Rae (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
E O'Neill (Applicant)

Solicitors:
John C Palmieri Solicitor (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/00320635
Publication restriction:

Order under section 64(1) (a) and (c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 prohibiting the disclosure and publication of:

(a) the names of the NSW Police Officers identified in the affidavit of Craig Anthony Rae affirmed on 6 April 2020; and

(b) paragraphs [13] to [32], [35] and Attachment B of the affidavit of Craig Anthony Rae affirmed on 6 April 2020.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. The applicant is a former serving member of the NSW Police Force (NSWPF). He served from July 1985 to January 2017, reaching the rank of Detective Superintendent. He was medically discharged.

  2. The applicant filed an application in the Tribunal dated 14 October 2019 seeking administrative review of a Notice of Decision made by the respondent on 25 July 2019.

Introduction

  1. The respondent's Notice of Decision dated 25 July 2019 concerned an access application dated 29 May 2019 made by…

Continue reading Rae v Commissioner of Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rae v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 189
Case
[2020] NSWCATAD 189
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rae sought judicial review of a decision made by the Commissioner of Police under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA). The Commissioner had determined that certain documents were exempt from disclosure under the Act due to public interest considerations. The dispute arose from Rae’s request for information concerning police operations, which the Commissioner deemed exempt from disclosure.

The central legal issue was whether the Commissioner’s decision was lawful and whether the balance struck between public interest considerations against disclosure and those in favour of disclosure was appropriate. Rae argued that the Commissioner had incorrectly weighed the public interest considerations, contending that the documents should have been disclosed due to a significant public interest in transparency and accountability.

The Court examined the statutory framework of the GIPA Act and relevant case law on the public interest considerations outlined in the Act. The Court found that the Commissioner had appropriately balanced the competing public interest considerations and that the decision to withhold the documents was justified. The Court concluded that the Commissioner had correctly applied the statutory provisions and that the decision was within the range of reasonable outcomes. Therefore, the Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision.

No further orders were made by the Court beyond affirming the Commissioner's Notice of Decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Affirm the respondent's Notice of Decision made under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 dated 31 January 2020.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.