Key published decisions applying Schedule 3, section 10(3) RTI Act

Wolfe and Queensland Police Service (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 30 June 2016).

In Wolfe and Queensland Police Service (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 30 June 2016) (Wolfe), the information sought by the applicant included a transcript of an interview with a QPS officer. The officer had been interviewed regarding a complaint made by the applicant. The Assistant Commissioner referred to the Supreme Court of Queensland decision in Nugent v Ian Stewart (Commissioner of Police) & Anor [2015] QSC 338. In this decision, the Court considered the operation of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), the Police Service (Discipline) Regulations 1990 (Qld) and QPS Policy and Directions, and found that when a QPS officer is directed to answer questions under these instruments, the privilege against self-incrimination is overridden and officers must answer questions put to them.  In Wolfe, the Assistant Commissioner found that the transcript of the interview contained reference to the officer being given a direction to answer questions put to him under the above instruments. Given these circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that the information in the transcript was given by the officer under compulsion in abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination, and was therefore exempt information under schedule 3, section 10(3) of the RTI Act.