Wojciechowska v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice

In Wojciechowska v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice, the applicant sought a review of decisions made by the respondent regarding the retention of CCTV footage and the applicability of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act). The applicant argued that the CCTV footage in question was held by the respondent and sought access to it under the GIPA Act. The respondent claimed that the CCTV footage was not held and that any searches conducted were reasonable. The matter was heard and determined by the Information and Privacy Commission of New South Wales (IPC), which found in favour of the respondent.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the IPC had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's application for administrative review of the respondent's decision under the GIPA Act and whether the IPC was exercising federal jurisdiction. The court also needed to determine if the IPC was exercising judicial power or administrative power when reviewing the respondent's decision under the GIPA Act. Additionally, the court examined whether the IPC's decision to not disqualify itself from the matter was reasonable.

The court found that the IPC did have jurisdiction to hear the applicant's application for administrative review of the respondent's decision under the GIPA Act. The court concluded that the IPC was not exercising federal jurisdiction but rather was exercising state jurisdiction under the GIPA Act. The court further found that the IPC was exercising administrative power when reviewing the respondent's decision under the GIPA Act, and that the decision to not disqualify itself from the matter was reasonable. The court also dismissed the applicant's challenge to the IPC's jurisdiction to hear the matter, finding that the IPC was not exercising federal jurisdiction in this case.

The court affirmed the respondent's decision dated 10 March 2021. The court also dismissed the applicant's jurisdictional challenge and requests for disqualification, finding that the IPC had properly exercised its jurisdiction and that there was no apprehended bias in the decision-making process. The court's decision upheld the respondent's position and found that the IPC's decision was reasonable and lawful.