(210644 – Part A, 24 February 2010)
The applicant applied for documents relating to the cancellation of his visa; the initial decision to detain him and ongoing decisions to continue to detain him; the issue of a Criminal Justice Stay Certificate and/or any associated criminal justice visa in relation to him; the making of a residency determination under the Migration Act regarding him; and communications with other government agencies concerning him.
During the course of the external review, the Department of Police (also known as Queensland Police Service – QPS) agreed to release of some information, and the applicant confirmed that he did not pursue some information.
The Part A decision summarised below considered the remaining information in issue except for two folios, i.e. folios 147 and 148. (Please see the separate entry for the Part B decision regarding folios 147 and 148.)
Section 11D – provision in another Act that excludes the operation of the FOI Act
The Information Commissioner found that the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) (FOI Act) did not apply to information which disclosed activities and/or records under Chapter 13 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) (PPR Act). Section 325 of the PPR Act, which is listed in schedule 3 of the FOI Act, excludes the application of the FOI Act to such information.
Section 27(3) – deletion of irrelevant information
The Information Commissioner found that information regarding a journalist’s activities was irrelevant to the applicant’s application and QPS was entitled to delete such information pursuant to section 27(3) of the FOI Act.
Section 42(1)(e) – information that could prejudice the effectiveness of a lawful method or procedure regarding a contravention or possible contravention of the law
The Information Commissioner was satisfied that some information described methods or procedures used by QPS / the Australian Federal Police (AFP), and that these methods or procedures are used for preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with contraventions or possible contraventions of the criminal law. The AFP was concerned that release of the information would reveal the existence and use of a particular technology and thereby harm police operations. However, a cursory search of the internet revealed AFP information of a similar level of detail about the technology. Further, it was noted that the public could deduce the method or procedure and, given its nature, would not be able to use knowledge of it to avoid detection in future. On this basis, the Information Commissioner was not satisfied that disclosure of the information would prejudice the effectiveness of the particular method or procedure, and found that the information was not exempt under section 42(1)(e) of the FOI Act.
Section 43(1) – information to which legal professional privilege attaches
The Information Commissioner found that some information satisfied the requirements for establishing legal professional privilege at common law, and therefore was exempt under section 43(1) of the FOI Act. However, the Information Commissioner found that other information, which revealed that legal advice was obtained by AFP and the topic/subject matter on which such advice was sought - but did not reveal the substance, nature or content of the advice - did not satisfy the requirements for establishing legal professional privilege at common law, and therefore was not exempt under section 43(1) of the FOI Act.
Section 44(1) – information concerning personal affairs
The Information Commissioner found that names and other identifying particulars of persons who were the subject of police investigation or intelligence gathering, or who cooperated with and provided information to the police, comprised personal affairs information for the purpose of section 44(1) of the FOI Act. Public interest considerations regarding government accountability and transparency were examined – however, the Information Commissioner concluded that the information in issue would not enhance government accountability or transparency, and accordingly the information was exempt under section 44(1) of the FOI Act.
Section 50(c)(i) – information to which parliamentary privilege attaches
The Information Commissioner found that a parliamentary briefing prepared to assist the Police Minister to answer questions that might be asked in the Legislative Assembly constituted an act done for the purposes of, or incidental to, transacting the business of the Assembly. Release of the briefing, other than in accordance with parliamentary processes, would infringe the privileges of Parliament and, accordingly, the briefing was exempt under section 50(c)(i) of the FOI Act.
