MTTO and Department of Police

Application number:

1996 S0024

Decision date:

Tuesday, Feb 25, 1997

MTTO and Queensland Police Service
(1996 S0023, 25 February 1997)

MTTO and Queensland Police Service
(1996 S0024, 25 February 1997)

MTTO and Queensland Health
(1996 S0146, 25 February 1997)

In 1996 S0023, the applicant sought access to matter contained in a report by a police officer to the Director of Mental Health, which was required because the warrant referred to above was not executed. However, the application for external review was made several months outside the prescribed time limit. Applying the principles set out in Young and Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1994) 1 QAR 543, the Information Commissioner decided not to allow an extension of time. The Information Commissioner considered that the matter in issue was prima facie exempt under s.44(1), and that the applicant did not have a reasonably arguable case, with reasonable prospects of success.

In 1996 S0024, applying the principles set out in ROSK and Brisbane North Regional Health Authority (1996) 3 QAR 393, the Information Commissioner determined that the grounds given by an informant in support of the issue of a warrant under the Mental Health Act 1974 Qld, in respect of the applicant, were exempt matter under s.42(1)(h), as disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice a system for protection of persons. The Information Commissioner also decided that the informant's signature and address was matter that concerned the informant's personal affairs and was exempt under s.44(1).

Again in 1996 S0146, the applicant was some months late in lodging his application for external review of a decision to refuse him access to matter referring to the same informant in a letter from the Acting Director of Mental Health to a police officer, consequent upon the report referred to above. The Information Commissioner refused to grant an extension of time, considering that the matter in issue was prima facie exempt under s.42(1)(b), and that the applicant did not have a reasonably arguable case, with reasonable prospects of success.