Sheehy v Commissioner of Police; Rapisarda v Commissioner of Police; McDonald v Commissioner of Police; Housego v Commissioner of Police

The applicants, Sheehy, Rapisarda, McDonald and Housego, sought access to personal information held by the Commissioner of Police concerning complaints made under Part 8A of the Police Act 1990. The applicants sought the information in order to facilitate their legal action against the Commissioner. The Commissioner refused to provide the information on the basis that disclosure would prejudice the effective exercise of the agency's functions and was not in the public interest. The applicants sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decisions to refuse to provide the information. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commissioner's refusal to provide the personal information was lawful. In considering this issue, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Police Act 1990, the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. The court considered the public interest in transparency and accountability against the public interest in maintaining confidentiality of the complainant's identity and in protecting the effective exercise of the agency's functions. The court concluded that the Commissioner's decisions were lawful. The Commissioner was entitled to refuse to provide the personal information because disclosure would be likely to prejudice the effective exercise of the agency's functions and was not in the public interest. The court rejected the applicants' submissions that the public interest in transparency and accountability outweighed the public interest in maintaining confidentiality of the complainant's identity and in protecting the effective exercise of the agency's functions. The Commissioner's decisions were affirmed and the applicants' applications for judicial review were dismissed. The Commissioner was ordered to file and serve submissions on costs and the applicants were ordered to respond.