Constitutional Law—Freedom of information—Exempt documents—Cabinet documents—Conclusive certificate—Appeal from refusal of access—Powers of appellate tribunal—Exception of review of decision to give certificate—Power only to determine whether document properly classified—Effect of certificate—Whether to preclude appeal upon ground that document not properly classified—Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vict.), ss. 13, 28(1), (4), 50(3), (5).

Decision

GIBBS C.J., MASON, WILSON, DEANE and DAWSON JJ: The respondent is an applicant under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vict.) for access to a document which he described in his application as "A report prepared for the Effectiveness Review Committee regarding the present and future delivery of Correctional Services within the Government". The application was made to the Victorian Public Service Board, which is an agency within the meaning of s.5(1) of the Act. The application was refused by the General Manager of that agency on the ground that the document was exempt from disclosure. The respondent applied for the review of this decision, first by way of internal review to the Chairman of the Public Service Board and then, when that application failed, by way of appeal to the County Court of Victoria.

2. Subject to the Act, every person has a legally enforceable right to obtain access in accordance with the Act to a document of an agency, other than an exempt document, or to an official document of a Minister, other than an exempt document: s.13. Part IV of the Act provides that certain documents are exempt documents. Under s.28(1), which deals with cabinet documents, a document is an exempt document if it is -

"(a) the official record of any deliberation or

decision of the Cabinet;

(b) a document that has been prepared by a Minister for the purpose of submission for consideration by the Cabinet;

(c) a document that is a copy of, or contains an extract from, a document referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or

(d) a document the disclosure of which would involve the disclosure of any deliberation or decision of the Cabinet, other than a document by which a decision of the Cabinet was officially published."

Section 28(4) provides:

"For the purpose of this Act, a certificate

signed by the Secretary to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet certifying that a document is one of a kind referred to in a paragraph of sub-section (1) establishes conclusively that it is an exempt document."

In addition to cabinet documents, there are other documents which are declared to be exempt under ss.29 to 38, but no provision is made for a certificate of exemption for them. It is necessary only to refer particularly to s.30, sub-s.(1) of which provides:

"Subject to this section, a document is an

exempt document if it is a document the disclosure of which under this Act -

(a) would disclose matter in the nature of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Victorian Public Service Board v Wright

Details

AGLC: Victorian Public Service Board v Wright [1986] HCA 16
Case: [1986] HCA 16
Decision Date: 11 April 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Victorian Public Service Board v Wright concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from the dismissal of Mr Wright, a public servant, by the Victorian Public Service Board. Mr Wright sought a declaration that his dismissal was invalid and an order for his reinstatement.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Board had acted within its statutory powers when it dismissed Mr Wright. Specifically, the Court considered whether the Board had complied with the procedural requirements of the relevant legislation before making its decision to terminate Mr Wright's employment. The central legal issue was the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the dismissal of public servants in Victoria.

The Court held that the Board had failed to afford Mr Wright natural justice. It found that the Board had not given Mr Wright adequate notice of the specific grounds upon which it proposed to dismiss him, nor had it provided him with a sufficient opportunity to respond to those grounds. The Court applied the principles of procedural fairness, which require that a person affected by a decision be given a fair hearing and that the decision-maker be unbiased. The Court concluded that the dismissal was therefore invalid.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order for reinstatement made by the Supreme Court of Victoria, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court with a declaration that the dismissal of Mr Wright was invalid.

Orders