PDE and The University of Queensland
(210634, 19 February 2009)
Section 28A(1) FOI Act – Documents nonexistent or unlocatable
The applicant applied to the University of Queensland (UQ) for access to the academic record of a student who had undertaken the same course as him and who had obtained a credit or exemption for a unit in that course by reason of the student’s previous studies. The applicant was not able to provide the name of the student but was able to provide a number of specific, identifying characteristics. UQ was satisfied that it had identified the only student who fitted the characteristics provided by the applicant but an examination of this student’s academic record showed that she had not obtained a credit or exemption. UQ denied the applicant access to the record under section 28A(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) (FOI Act) on the basis that the record the applicant was seeking did not exist.
Applying the principles set out in PDE and University of Queensland (unreported decision of 9 February 2009) the Acting Information Commissioner indicated that for the purposes of section 28A(1) of the FOI Act, whether an agency is ‘satisfied’ that a document does not exist is an evaluative judgement based on the knowledge and experience of the agency with respect to, among other key factors, relevant administrative practices and procedures including but not exclusively information management approaches.
The Acting Information Commissioner stated that for UQ to determine whether there was a document responding to the FOI Application and otherwise to satisfy itself that the document sought did not exist, it was appropriate for UQ to have regard to the key factors that relate to the FOI Application, which in this instance included:
· the information provided by the applicant that might assist in identifying the student described by the applicant (Student A)
· UQ’s knowledge of its record systems as this related to identifying Student A
· Student A’s academic record
· UQ’s administrative processes in relation to credits and exemptions for the unit concerned.
UQ provided evidence of the steps it had taken to identify Student A. The Acting Information Commissioner agreed with UQ’s conclusion that only one student fitted the identifying characteristics provided by the applicant and an examination of that student’s academic record confirmed that she had not obtained a credit or exemption. UQ indicated that in any event, as the specified unit was not a compulsory course, if a student did not wish to undertake the unit it was not necessary for that student to apply for a credit or exemption for the unit.
Accordingly, the Acting Information Commissioner decided that:
· there were reasonable grounds for UQ to be satisfied that the document sought by the applicant did not exist
· the absence of the information sought by the applicant was satisfactorily explained by UQ’s processes
· access to the document sought by the applicant in the FOI Application could be refused under section 28A(1)of the FOI Act.
