Copley and Department of Justice and Attorney-General
(210962, 24 May 2010 )
Section 44(1) of the FOI Act – Personal affairs
The applicant sought access to Coronial Findings on the deaths of two people (Coronial Findings) The Department of Justice and Attorney General (Department) decided to refuse the applicant access to the Coronial Findings pursuant to section 44(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) (FOI Act). The applicant sought internal review of the Department’s decision. On internal review, the Department affirmed its original decision. The applicant then applied to the Information Commissioner for external review of the Department’s decision.
During the external review, the Department accepted that parts of the Coronial Findings could be disclosed to the applicant without disclosing the personal affairs of either of the two people. As a result, Assistant Commissioner Corby considered whether the parts of the Coronial Findings that were not provided to the applicant during external review (Matter in Issue) were exempt under section 44(1) of the FOI Act.
Following consideration of the Matter in Issue, the requirements of section 44(1) of the FOI Act, relevant public interest considerations and the submissions made by the parties, Assistant Commissioner Corby found that:
· the Matter in Issue comprised personal affairs information of the two people
· all of the Matter in Issue was prima facie exempt pursuant to section 44(1) of the FOI Act, subject to the application of the public interest balancing test.
In relation to the public interest in maintaining the privacy of an individual’s personal affairs information, Assistant Commissioner Corby found that:
· while some of the personal affairs information was in the public domain and the public interest in maintaining the privacy of that information was reduced, it was not extinguished.
In relation to the public interests in favour of disclosure; namely, the public interests in the accountability of government and in enabling a person to pursue a legal remedy, Assistant Commissioner Corby found that:
· the disclosure of the Matter in Issue would not enhance the accountability of government or enable the applicant to pursue a legal remedy
Accordingly, Assistant Commissioner Corby considered that, as no weight could be afforded to the public interest considerations favouring disclosure, these considerations did not outweigh the public interest in maintaining the privacy of the personal information of the two people. On that basis the Matter in Issue was found to be exempt under section 44(1) of the FOI Act.