![]() ![]() The agency decided to withhold in full, the coronial brief of evidence on the basis it was excluded information under clause 1 of Schedule 2 of the GIPA Act and to withhold in part, the agency’s investigation material contained in the E database either because the information was excluded information contained in the coronial brief, or because an overriding public interest consideration against disclosure applied (clauses 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(g) and 6(1)). In June 2018, the applicant made an access application for the brief of evidence provided to the coronial investigation into the death of her father. Section 100 Administrative review of decision by NCAT Section 14 public interest considerations against disclosure (clauses 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(g) and 6(1))Ĭlause 1 of Schedule 2, excluded information Section 60(1)(d) refuse to deal with the application where the information is available to the applicant, having been produced by subpoena or other order Section 80(d) review of a decision to refuse to provide access to information Section 80(c) review of a decision to refuse to deal with an application The decision also provides guidance on the legislative context for the exercise of the discretion in section 60(1)(d) to refuse to deal with the application, with the Tribunal (at ) confirming that the mere fact that some information has been provided to an applicant through subpoena or other order, does not necessarily mean the discretion should be exercised in the agency’s favour factors of a personal kind, related to the particular application and the access applicant’s personal circumstances, may also be relevant. Information that is determined to be excluded information under the GIPA Act, but has been provided to the access applicant through another jurisdiction, retains its character as excluded information and the fact it has been provided does not overcome this conclusive presumption of an overriding public interest consideration against disclosure. ![]() The decision confirms that an access application may comprise a request for information that is found to be excluded information, as well as other government information which will be subject to the public interest test in section 13. The Tribunal (at ) also affirmed the respondent’s claims that the public interest considerations against disclosure outweighed those considerations in favour. The Tribunal (at ) found that the coronial brief of evidence was excluded information, and (at ) that the documents on the database which were also in the brief were excluded information. This information concerned the respondent’s investigation into the death of the applicant’s father, which had been referred to the Coroner. The Tribunal reviewed the decision by the Commissioner of Police (respondent) to withhold a coronial brief of evidence provided to the NSW Coroner, and police investigation materials which had been sought under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ( GIPA Act). Read the decision here: Betzis v Commissioner of Police NSWCATAD 71 ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |