Smith and Australian Federal Police (Freedom of Information)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Matthew Smith to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for access to documents relating to his attempted redeployment and transfer. The AFP initially failed to make a decision within the statutory timeframe, leading to a deemed refusal. Mr Smith then applied to the Information Commissioner for review, and the AFP subsequently made a decision which became the subject of the review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT Senior Member, Dr James Popple, presided over the review.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether certain documents were exempt from disclosure under the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if disclosure of one page would, or could reasonably be expected to, prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods for the protection of public safety, pursuant to s 37(2)(c). It also had to consider whether other pages were conditionally exempt under s 47F, requiring an assessment of whether their disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information and, if so, whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, the Tribunal was asked to determine if certain pages contained information irrelevant to Mr Smith's request, and whether the AFP had taken all reasonable steps to locate all relevant documents.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on applying the relevant provisions of the FOI Act to the disputed documents, which comprised extracts from handwritten diaries of AFP officers. The AFP contended that one page was exempt under s 37(2)(c) due to potential prejudice to public safety methods, and other pages were exempt under s 47F due to the unreasonable disclosure of personal information. The AFP also argued that some pages contained irrelevant information, and that it had conducted all reasonable searches. Mr Smith, however, maintained that the AFP had not taken all reasonable steps to find documents within the scope of his request. The onus was on the AFP to establish that its decision to refuse access was justified.

The Tribunal affirmed the substituted decision of the Australian Federal Police, as altered on 11 July 2016. This affirmation indicated that the AFP's decision regarding the disclosure of the disputed documents, after considering exemptions and irrelevant information, was upheld by the Tribunal.