Yabsley and Australian Postal Corporation (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Australian Information Commissioner, which affirmed the Australian Postal Corporation's refusal to grant access to certain documents under the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth). The applicant, who had previously been found guilty of offences involving the postal service, sought access to documents he claimed would demonstrate his prosecution was commenced and conducted without due authority. The Australian Postal Corporation had determined that it had taken all reasonable steps to locate the requested documents, which it asserted either did not exist or were no longer in its possession.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Australian Postal Corporation had satisfied the requirements of section 24A of the *Freedom of Information Act 1982*. This section mandates that an agency must take all reasonable steps to find a document if it is satisfied that the document is in its possession or control, or if it has been transferred to another agency. The court was required to determine if the respondent's actions in searching for and responding to the applicant's requests for documents were sufficient to meet this statutory obligation, particularly in circumstances where the existence or location of the documents was disputed.

The court considered the evidence, including the testimony of a former investigator for the Australian Postal Corporation, Mr Otto, and the guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner. It was satisfied that the respondent had undertaken extensive consultations to locate the requested documents. The court accepted that some documents may have been passed to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions as part of the investigation and prosecution process, and that the respondent could not be certain of their current whereabouts or existence after that transfer. Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent had provided documents that satisfied the subject matter of the applicant's request, even if not precisely matching the description.

The court affirmed the decision of the Australian Information Commissioner. It found that the Australian Postal Corporation had taken all reasonable steps to find the documents within the scope of the request, and that the requested documents either no longer existed or could not be found, despite the respondent's efforts. Consequently, the court concluded that the respondent had complied with section 24A of the Act.