SD and Department of Police; Shishorin (Third Party)
SD and Queensland Police Service; Shishorin (Third Party)
(2003 F0683, 28 February 2005)
Prejudice to the conduct/outcome of a test, examination or audit – matter relating to law enforcement – personal affairs – commercial affairs – confidential information
The third party was granted access, by the QPS, to documents concerning a complaint he made to the QPS about the applicant. The majority of those documents had been obtained by the QPS under warrant or by seizure. The applicant objected to the disclosure to the third party of the matter in issue, relying on the grounds of exemption in s.40(a), s.40(b), s.42(1)(c), s.42(1)(e), s.42(1)(h), s.44(1), s.45(1)(c) and s.46(1) of the FOI Act.
Assistant Commissioner Barker applied the above provisions and decided that the matter in issue did not meet the criteria for prima facie exemption under s.40(a), s.40(b), s.42(1)(c), s.42(1)(e), s.42(1)(h) or s.45(1)(c) of the FOI Act. In applying s.44(1) of the FOI Act, AC Barker held that while the matter in issue did concern the personal affairs of the applicant and/or members of his family, there were public interest considerations which favoured disclosure of some parts of that matter. In considering the application of s.46(1), AC Barker discussed its application to documents compulsorily acquired by an agency under statute, and concluded that the matter in issue did not qualify for exemption under either s.46(1)(a) or s.46(1)(b).