Darcy and Queensland Rail

Darcy and Queensland Rail
(2000 S0023, 17 February 2000) 

The applicant purported to apply for review of a decision made by the respondent in which the respondent had refused to accede to a number of requests made by the applicant.  The applicant had asked the respondent to provide him with a transcription of handwritten notes that were on a document to which he had been given access, as he was unable to decipher the handwriting. 

The Information Commissioner found that there is nothing in the FOI Act which places an obligation upon an agency to assist an applicant to decipher handwriting contained in a document to which access has been granted.  The applicant was welcome to inspect the original, but, unfortunately, the handwriting was simply indecipherable.  The applicant had also asked the respondent to advise him who had authored the notes, when, and why the notes were made. 

The Information Commissioner found that those requests were essentially an attempt to use the FOI Act to ask questions of an agency which, according to the principles stated in Hearl and Musgrave Shire Council (1994) 1 QAR 557, is not a legally enforceable right conferred by s.21 of the FOI Act.  Pursuant to s.77(l) of the FOI Act, the Information Commissioner decided not to deal further with the applicant's purported application for review on the grounds that it was misconceived and lacking in substance.