Price and Department of Police; (Decision currently under Judical Review)

Application number:
2005 F0442
Decision date:
Friday, Jun 29, 2007

Price and Queensland Police Service
(2005 FO442, 29 June 2007)

Section 77 refusal to deal with part of application on the basis that it is vexatious  

The applicant sought access to various documents to which access had been sought in previous FOI applications to the same agency and about which the Information Commissioner had previously ruled.  Assistant Commissioner Corby decided not to deal with that part of the applicant’s application that revisited matters that had previously been addressed in decisions of this Office on the basis that that part of the application was vexatious pursuant to section 77(1) of the FOI Act.  

Section 42(1)(ca) serious act of harassment or intimidation 

The agency submitted that the release of certain material could reasonably be expected to result in a QPS Officer being subjected to a serious act of harassment or intimidation.  Assistant Commissioner Corby found that there was insufficient evidence upon which to base such a finding and concluded that the matter in issue was not exempt pursuant to section 42(1)(ca) of the FOI Act.  

Section 42(1A) – investigation of contravention or possible contravention of the law - information given under compulsion under an Act that abrogated privilege against self incrimination in the course of that investigation 

The agency submitted that information contained in the matter in issue was given in the course of an investigation of a possible contravention of the law and was given under compulsion under an Act that abrogated the privilege against self incrimination.  Assistant Commissioner Corby found that there were four elements of section 42(1A), each of which must be satisfied in order to claim the exemption under section 42(1A).  In this case Assistant Commissioner Corby found that the third element of the provision had not been satisfied.  The nature of the complaint did not expose the person under investigation to the risk of criminal prosecution, merely a penalty, and therefore there was no valid claim for the privilege against self incrimination.  Accordingly, the matter in issue was not exempt pursuant to section 42(1A).

Note: Decision currently under Judicial Review by the Supreme Court of Queensland