Relevant decisions from other jurisdictions

Re Corse and Ministry of Justice [1996] WAIcmr 64

The applicant applied to the Ministry of Justice (Agency) and was granted access to documents authored by Mr Corse. Mr Corse objected to disclosure of the relevant matter, including a letter to a Minister and a submission to the Official Corruption Commission. Mr Corse submitted that the documents were exempt under schedule 1, section 12(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA), which is equivalent section to section 50(b) of the FOI Act.

Is the relevant matter subject to an order or direction and was the direction given by a person or body having power to take evidence on oath?

The relevant matter was produced in evidence to the Royal Commission into the City of Wanneroo and was the subject of a ‘suppression order’ issued by that Royal Commission. [6]

Public disclosure

Where ‘public disclosure’ would be contrary to an order made by the Royal Commission, the relevant matter will be exempt. The applicant submitted that he did not intend to make the documents public and offered an undertaking to that effect. [12] Nonetheless, the Western Australian Information Commissioner was satisfied that the provision does not require the decision-maker to consider the likelihood of public disclosure, but rather the provision is established upon determining whether public disclosure would contravene an order of the Royal Commission. [13]

Accordingly, the relevant matter was exempt.

K.J Aldred and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet No. N88/106 AAT No. 5159

The applicant applied to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for access to the transcript of a third party’s interview conducted by officers of a Royal Commission into drugs. The application was transferred to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (Department) and, since no transcript of the interview existed, a report (Report) prepared by a policeman involved in the Royal Commission was the relevant matter to which access was refused under the equivalent Commonwealth provision.14

Is the relevant matter subject to an order or direction?

No official order was made by the Royal Commission to suppress the Report. [11] However, as the Report was marked as ‘Confidential Exhibit No. 365’ and tendered during a confidential session of the Commission, Hartigan J inferred an order or direction from the Royal Commission to prevent publication of the Report, pursuant to the Royal Commission Act 1902 (Cth). [21]

Was the direction given by a royal commission or commission of inquiry?

The Royal Commission into drugs, conducted by Sir Edward Williams, was a Royal Commission for the purposes of the Commonwealth provision.

Accordingly, the relevant matter was exempt.

14 Section 46(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). [up]

Last updated: March 5, 2012