Hillier and Redland City Council
(310243, 9 June 2011)
Section 47(3)(a), (b) and (e) Right to Information Act – Grounds on which access may be refused
Section 49 Right to Information Act – Contrary to public interest
Section 52(1)(b) Right to Information Act – Document nonexistent or unlocatable
Schedule 3, section 7 Right to Information Act – Legal Professional Privilege
The applicant made an application to Redland City Council (Council) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (RTI Act) seeking access to documents relating to a development application for a biomass power station at Mount Cotton and Council’s investigation of a complaint to the CMC about the development application. The applicant subsequently agreed to reduce the scope (Amended Application).
Council located 757 pages and decided to release 750 pages in full and 7 pages in part. On internal review, Council located additional pages and decided to release 177 pages in full and 6 pages in part. On external review, Council located a further 217 pages of emails following a request to conduct further searches. The applicant was provided with full access to 205 pages and partial access to 12 pages.
The issues for determination in this review are:
· the scope of the terms of the Amended Application
· the sufficiency of Council’s searches as the applicant maintains that further documents exist (Further General Documents and Further Specific Documents)
· whether Council can refuse access to certain information on the basis that the information is exempt matter as it is subject to legal professional privilege; and
· whether Council can refuse access to certain information on the basis that disclosure of the information would, on balance, be contrary to public interest.
After carefully considering all of the evidence and submissions, Right to Information Commissioner Mead was satisfied that:
· the Further Specific Documents are outside the scope of the Amended Application
· the Further General Documents do not exist on the basis that:
o Council has conducted searches; and
o such searches comprise all reasonable steps to locate them
· certain information would be privileged from production in a legal proceeding on the ground of legal professional privilege; and
· disclosure of certain information would, on balance, be contrary to public interest.
Accordingly, Right to Information Commissioner Mead varied Council’s decision by finding that:
· access to the Further General Documents sought can be refused under section 47(3)(e) of the RTI Act on the ground set out in section 52(1)(a) of the RTI Act
· access to certain information can be refused on the basis that it would be privileged from production in a legal proceeding on the ground of legal professional privilege under section 47(3)(a) of the RTI Act; and
· access to certain information can be refused on the basis that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest under section 47(3)(b) of the RTI Act.
