Key published decisions applying Section 42(1)(g) FOI Act
The access applicant sought access to a third party’s house plans. The Pine River Shire Council (Council) provided access to the relevant matter, subject to the deletion of the house owner’s name and address. On external review, the third party asserted that access should be refused to the relevant matter under a number of FOI provisions, including section 42(1)(g) of the FOI Act.
The Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that a residential house falls within the meaning of a ‘building’. [26] There were real and substantial grounds that the security of the building would be endangered because the plans would assist a person to establish the best access points for illegal entry. [28]
Accordingly, the relevant matter was exempt under section 42(1)(g) of the FOI Act.
The applicant, a prisoner of the Maximum Security Unit (MSU) of a Correctional Centre, sought access to video recordings containing CCTV footage of the MSU. Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) refused access to the matter under a number of FOI provisions including section 42(1)(g) on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of the MSU.
The Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that the footage, which revealed the method and time of MSU staff movement as well as security procedures, could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of the MSU. [50]
Accordingly, the matter was exempt from disclosure under section 42(1)(g) of the FOI Act.
Curtin and Pine River Shire Council (1997) 4 QAR 195
The applicant sought access to the names of licensed operators of itinerant food vendors and the registered numbers of the vehicles. The Pine River Shire Council (Council) refused access to the relevant matter under a number of FOI provisions, including section 42(1)(g) of the FOI Act on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of the itinerant food vehicles.
The Information Commissioner was satisfied that there was no reasonable expectation that disclosure could endanger the security of the vehicles because the information sought by the applicant could easily be obtained by approaching the relevant vehicles while they were trading. [23]
Accordingly, the relevant matter was not exempt under section 42(1)(g) of the FOI Act.
The applicant sought access to a report (Report) prepared by the Director of Audit and Investigations into the fatal assault of a prisoner. Queensland Corrective Services Commission (QCSC) refused access to the matter, relying on a number of FOI provisions including section 42(1)(g) of the FOI Act on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of the prison.
The Information Commissioner was satisfied that part of the Report was exempt from disclosure under section 42(1)(g) of the FOI Act and the nature of the exempt matter could not be revealed in the decision. [21]
Nonetheless, the Information Commissioner found that disclosing information comprising:
- details of the prison’s noncompliance with prescribed safety and security procedures
- general systems of control for prisoner movement
- security measures for prison gymnasium
- the Report’s recommendations for change, which were later implemented could not be reasonably expected to endanger the security of the prison because the matter would have been known to the prison population. [22, 25-28] Disclosing details of the fatal assault
could not reasonably be expected to endanger the security of a building because these details were previously discussed in open court. [23]
Accordingly, some relevant matter was exempt under section 42(1)(g) of the FOI Act.
Last updated: March 5, 2012