Turner v Corrective Services NSW

Case [2013] NSWADT 39

Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Turner v Corrective Services NSW [2013] NSWADT 39
Hearing dates:On the papers
Decision date: 18 February 2013
Jurisdiction:General Division
Before: S Montgomery, Judicial Member
Decision:

1.The decision is affirmed with the exception of those items referred to in paragraphs [67] - [78] of these reasons.

2.Any further material from the parties is to be filed and served in accordance with the timetable set out in paragraphs [71] and [76] of these reasons.

Catchwords: access to government information - access application - reasonable searches - overriding public interest against disclosure - decision to refuse to deal with application
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited: Camilleri v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 5
Cianfrano v Director General Department of Commerce and anor (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195
Commissioner of Police v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19
Ferns v Commissioner of Corrective Services, Department of Corrective Services [2007] NSWADT 298.
Miriani v Commissioner of NSW Police [2005] NSWADT 187
Patsalis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2003] NSWADT 213
Texts Cited: Riley, Solicitors Manual
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Donovan Turner (Applicant)
Corrective Services NSW (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
S Barnes (Applicant)
D Allen (Respondent)
D Turner (Applicant in person)
Corrective Services (Respondent)
File Number(s):123014

reasons for decision

  1. GENERAL DIVISION (S MONTGOMERY, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)): Mr Turner ("the Applicant") applied to Corrective Services NSW ("the Respondent") under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ("the GIPA Act") for access to information held by the Respondent ("the GIPA request").

  1. It appears from the material filed that the Applicant had made earlier attempts to lodge the GIPA request but that the Respondent did not regard those requests as valid.

  1. Following correspondence between the parties the scope of the Applicant's GIPA request was settled. By letter dated 12 October 2011, the Respondent's Information Access and Privacy Officer, Ms Mandy Beadle, wrote to the Applicant and confirmed the scope of the Applicant's GIPA request as follows:

I confirm the scope of your application to be for the following records:-
1.Case management file records not covered by your previous application received on 23 September 2010. Includes case notes and case records by all the people identified in the attachment to your application of 18.3.2011 (now known as attachment A) and case records about mail to and from you.
2.Case management file records from 2009 to those covered by your previous application received on 23 September 2010. Includes case notes and case records by all the people identified in the attachment to your application of 18.3.2011 (now known as attachment A) and case records about mail to and from you.
3.A printout of all your case management notes from OIMS [Offender Integrated Management System] not covered by your previous application received on 23 September 2010. Includes case notes and case records by all the people identified in the attachment to your application of 18.3.2011 (now known…

Continue reading Turner v Corrective Services NSW

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Turner v Corrective Services NSW [2013] NSWADT 39
Case
[2013] NSWADT 39
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Turner, sought access to certain documents held by the respondent, Corrective Services NSW. The dispute was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant argued that the respondent's refusal to provide certain documents was unlawful, unreasonable, and not in the public interest. The primary focus of the court was to determine whether the respondent's decision to refuse access to the requested documents was justified under the relevant legislation.

The court examined the criteria for assessing whether disclosure of the documents should be refused, including the potential impact on the privacy of individuals, the public interest in maintaining confidentiality, and the relevance of the documents to the applicant's request. The court also considered whether the respondent had conducted reasonable searches for the documents and whether there were overriding public interests against disclosure. Ultimately, the court found that the respondent had not demonstrated that the overriding public interest against disclosure outweighed the public interest in favour of disclosure.

The court's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant legislation, the evidence presented by both parties, and relevant legal precedents. The court held that the respondent's decision to refuse access to certain documents was not justified, and that the documents should be disclosed to the applicant. However, the court also found that some of the documents were exempt from disclosure under the relevant legislation, and that the respondent's decision to refuse access to those documents was justified. The court affirmed the decision of the respondent with some modifications, and set out a timetable for the filing and serving of any further material from the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The decision is affirmed with the exception of those items referred to in paragraphs [67] - [78] of these reasons.

2.Any further material from the parties is to be filed and served in accordance with the timetable set out in paragraphs [71] and [76] of these reasons.

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.