Prisoners' Legal Service Inc. and Queensland Corrective Services Commission

Application number:
1993 S0173
Decision date:
Thursday, Mar 27, 1997
Reported:
(1997) 3 QAR 503

Prisoners' Legal Service Inc. and Queensland Corrective Services Commission
(1993 S0173, 27 March 1997)

 

The Information Commissioner considered the application of a number of exemption provisions in relation to parts of a report by an inspector appointed by the respondent to investigate the circumstances of the death of a prisoner at a correctional centre.  The Information Commissioner generally found that information which had already been made public at the trial of the prisoners charged with murdering the deceased, including the identity and evidence of some witnesses referred to in the report, was not exempt matter under the FOI Act.

 

The Information Commissioner determined that matter which would identify prisoners who provided information to the inspector about criminal conduct or wrongdoing by other persons, and whose identity or existence remained confidential, was exempt matter under s.42(1)(b).  The Information Commissioner also determined that some matter was exempt on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of the correctional centre (s.42(1)(g)) or facilitate a person's escape from lawful custody (s.42(1)(i)).

 

The Information Commissioner rejected a claim to exemption under s.42(1)(e) in respect of matter which the Commissioner had not found to be exempt under s.42(1)(b).  The respondent claimed that officers and prisoners would be reluctant to provide any information to an inspector in future, if it became known that the report would be disclosed, and this would cause prejudice to a lawful method or procedure for preventing, investigating or dealing with a contravention or possible contravention of the law.  The Information Commissioner decided that disclosure of the methods and procedures used by the inspector could not, in itself, prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures.  The Information Commissioner also determined that disclosure of the matter in issue which did not qualify for exemption under s.42(1)(b), could not reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information.

 

As to the application of s.41(1), the Information Commissioner found that some matter was purely factual matter, and was therefore excluded from eligibility for exemption under s.41(1), by virtue of s.41(2)(b).  The Information Commissioner also found that disclosure of the inspector's analysis and recommendations with respect to problems in systems and methods of control at the correctional centre would, on balance, be in the public interest.  However, the Information Commissioner found that disclosure of recommendations for disciplinary action against individual prison officers, which did not ultimately proceed, would be contrary to the public interest in fair treatment of the officers.  The Information Commissioner decided that deletion of identifying references would adequately protect the officers, while still permitting access to relevant information in the inspector's report.

 

The Information Commissioner rejected claims for exemption under s.42(1)(c), s.46(1)(a) and s.46(1)(b) in relation to matter which did not qualify for exemption under other provisions.  The Information Commissioner found that some matter referring to personal relationships between prisoners and their families was exempt under s.44(1).

 

Other matter concerned the criminal histories of prisoners, and security classifications of prisoners.  Ultimately, it was not necessary to decide on the status of this matter, since the applicant did not press for access to it.  The Information Commissioner noted the considerable difficulties that would attend a decision as to whether a person's criminal history is information that concerns his or her personal affairs (eg, the fact that the criminal justice process of trial and sentencing ordinarily takes place in open court and is difficult to characterise as a private aspect of a person's life, whereas policy considerations relating to rehabilitation of offenders suggest that privacy considerations are relevant to the recording and dissemination of criminal history information).