Toe and Secretary, Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Beatrice Toe for an amendment to her personal records held by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, pursuant to the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth) (the FOI Act). Ms Toe sought to amend her date of birth recorded by the Department, which was initially recorded as xx September 1971, but which she claimed should be xx September 1983. The dispute arose from conflicting documentary evidence regarding her date of birth, including her initial visa application and a UNHCR certificate, which supported the 1971 date, and a Liberian Certificate of Registration of Birth, which stated 1983. The Tribunal was required to determine the correct date of birth for the purposes of amending Ms Toe's personal records.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the personal information held by the Department concerning Ms Toe's date of birth was incomplete, incorrect, out of date, or misleading, and whether this information had been used, was being used, or was available for use by the Department for an administrative purpose, as required by sections 48 and 49 of the FOI Act. The Tribunal also had to consider the weight to be given to various pieces of evidence, including statutory declarations from Ms Toe and her sister, and expert evidence from a forensic document examiner regarding the authenticity of the Liberian birth certificate.

The Tribunal reasoned that where civil documentation is difficult to obtain, information provided by agencies such as the UNHCR is given weight. In Ms Toe's case, her UNHCR certificate stated her year of birth as 1971, aligning with the information initially provided in her visa application. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the expert evidence of the forensic document examiner, who concluded with 100 per cent confidence that the Liberian Certificate of Registration of Birth, stating her birth year as 1983, was counterfeit. This evidence indicated a lack of security features, improper issuance, evidence of artificial ageing, and the use of a desktop printing method not widely available at the time. Ms Toe's own evidence regarding her life events, if her birth year were 1983, also raised inconsistencies, such as entering into a traditional marriage and having children at very young ages.

Given the strong expert evidence of the document's counterfeit nature and the consistency of other official documentation with the 1971 birth date, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the information held by the Department was incorrect or misleading. Consequently, the application for amendment of Ms Toe's personal records was dismissed.