HUD and Criminal Justice Commission
HUD and Criminal Justice Commission
(1994 S0074, 19 August 1998)
The documents in issue were reports concerning a CJC investigation into possible connections between the applicant (a former Police officer) and prostitutes. The Information Commissioner rejected a claim that one of the documents in issue (a memorandum prepared by a qualified lawyer, who was employed by the CJC as the leader of a multi-disciplinary investigative team) qualified for exemption under s.43(1) of the FOI Act. The Information Commissioner found that the memorandum could not be properly characterised as a communication for the purpose of giving legal advice, or professional legal assistance, on a professional matter referable to a relationship of lawyer and client (rather, it was a communication made in an administrative capacity as an employee of the CJC), and further that the memorandum did not, in any event, satisfy the 'sole purpose' test to attract legal professional privilege.
The Information Commissioner found that much of the matter in issue was exempt under one or more of s.42(1)(b), s.44(1) or s.46(1)(b) of the FOI Act, on the basis that it would disclose the identity of confidential sources of information, or information communicated pursuant to a mutual understanding that it would be treated in confidence, or information concerning the personal affairs of persons other than the applicant. The Information Commissioner rejected some claims for exemption under s.42(1)(e), but upheld others on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice certain lawful methods or procedures (not widely known to the public) for detecting or investigating possible contraventions of the law. The Information Commissioner rejected a claim that the balance of the matter in issue was exempt under s.41(1) of the FOI Act, because much of it was either routine administrative detail or merely factual matter (not eligible for exemption under s.41(1) of the FOI Act) and none of it was of such a sensitive nature as to warrant the conclusion that the public interest would be damaged by its disclosure.
