NS and Department of Corrective Services
NS and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0672, 28 April 2006)
NS and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0676, 28 April 2006)
NS and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0677, 28 April 2006)
NS and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0678, 28 April 2006)
NS and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0679, 28 April 2006)
NS and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0680, 28 April 2006)
NS and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0682, 28 April 2006)
NS and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0683, 28 April 2006)
NS and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0684, 28 April 2006)
Sufficiency of Search; s.35B(2) – Application fee
This decision deals with ten applications for external review by a prisoner applicant seeking access to intercom audio recordings and/or video footage of particular areas within the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre (AGCC). The external review applications arose out of the failure of the Department to make a decision on the access or internal review applications within the time specified by the FOI Act. The applications raised the issue of payment of an application fee and the sufficiency of searches undertaken by the Department for the audio and video recordings.
In respect of the application fee issues, Assistant Commissioner White found that application fees were payable in respect of three applications because some of the video recordings sought did not contain footage of the applicant. AC White found that these aspects of the applications did not concern the applicant’s personal affairs and therefore, an application fee was payable.
As to the sufficiency of search issues, the Department provided a statutory declaration attesting that the documents sought in these applications had been destroyed (i.e., taped over) due to the AGCC’s rotational recording process developed pursuant to a disposal authority, approved by Queensland State Archives. The applicant contended that there were reasonable grounds to believe that these documents existed and provided submissions in support of his contentions. AC White found no evidence to establish reasonable grounds to believe that any of the documents sought by the applicant were in the possession or under the control of the Department. AC White also found that the search efforts of the Department were reasonable in the circumstances of the case, given that the documents had been destroyed.
NS and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0675, 28 April 2006)
