Turner v Corrective Services NSW (No 2)

Case [2013] NSWADT 232

Administrative Decisions Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Turner v Corrective Services NSW (No 2) [2013] NSWADT 232
Hearing dates:On the papers
Decision date: 21 October 2013
Jurisdiction:General Division
Before: S Montgomery, Judicial Member
Decision:

1. The decision of the Respondent in regard to the videos identified as DVD WCCVID.097 WCCVID.098 and WCCVID.099 is set aside.

2. In substitution thereof a decision is made to grant the Applicant access to view the videos. Within 30 days from the publication of these reasons the Respondent is to provide the Applicant with a reasonable opportunity to inspect the footage of the videos.

3. The decision of the Respondent is otherwise affirmed.

Catchwords: access to government information - overriding public interest in favour of disclosure - form of access - information not held
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited: Commissioner of Police v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19
Flack v Commissioner of Police [2011] NSWADT 286
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
Turner v Corrective Services NSW [2013] NSWADT 39
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Donovan Turner (Applicant)
Corrective Services NSW (Respondent)
Representation: D Turner (Applicant in person)
G Singer (Respondent)
File Number(s):123014

reasons for decision

  1. GENERAL DIVISION (S MONTGOMERY, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)): The background to this matter is set out in my reasons for decision in Turner v Corrective Services NSW [2013] NSWADT 39 ("the earlier decision"). In the earlier decision I invited the Applicant to identify any items that he asserts have not been provided to him notwithstanding a determination by the Respondent that the information should be released to him. I directed that his clarification be succinct and limited to no more than five A4 pages.

  1. I gave the Respondent the opportunity to reply to any clarification provided by the Applicant and to also provided evidence or argument in support of the assertion that there were no reasonable grounds for the Respondent to make a different decision in relation to certain information that the Applicant sought but which had been the subject of an earlier determination.

  1. Each of the parties has filed further material. The Applicant filed submissions that comprise 24 hand-written pages. The submissions are neither succinct nor limited to five A4 pages. I have nevertheless considered those submissions. The Respondent has filed written submissions and also relies on affidavits provided by Margaret Fulford, Manager of the Respondent's Information Access and Privacy Unit; Dominic Pezzano, the Respondent's Superintendent - Custodial Corrections Division; and Matthew Damaso, Manager of the Respondent's Industries, Technical Support Unit, Security & Intelligence Division.

  1. I propose to only deal with those matters that were not determined in the earlier decision. The Applicant's submissions take issue with many of the findings that I made in the earlier decision. For example, at paragraph [64] of in the earlier decision I stated

64 However, on the basis of the Applicant's material I am also satisfied that other material should exist eg records of incidents to which the…

Continue reading Turner v Corrective Services NSW (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Turner v Corrective Services NSW (No 2) [2013] NSWADT 232
Case
[2013] NSWADT 232
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Turner v Corrective Services NSW (No 2) involved the applicant seeking access to certain videos under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA). The applicant, a former inmate, sought to view videos recorded during his time in custody, which he claimed documented instances of mistreatment. The dispute was heard by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The respondent, Corrective Services NSW, had previously refused to allow the applicant access to view the videos, citing concerns about privacy and potential harm to others.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around whether the respondent's decision to deny access to the videos was lawful and whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed any potential harm. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the videos were held by the respondent and if the overriding public interest favoured disclosure. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate form of access to the information, if any, that should be granted.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal concluded that the videos in question were indeed held by the respondent. It further found that the public interest in disclosure outweighed any potential harm to the privacy of others depicted in the videos. The Tribunal determined that the overriding public interest in transparency and accountability in the administration of corrective services mandated disclosure. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the respondent's decision to deny access and substituted a decision to grant the applicant the opportunity to view the videos within a specified timeframe. The Tribunal affirmed the respondent's decision in all other respects.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Respondent in regard to the videos identified as DVD WCCVID.097 WCCVID.098 and WCCVID.099 is set aside.

2. In substitution thereof a decision is made to grant the Applicant access to view the videos. Within 30 days from the publication of these reasons the Respondent is to provide the Applicant with a reasonable opportunity to inspect the footage of the videos.

3. The decision of the Respondent is otherwise affirmed.

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.