Sharples and Queensland Police Service
(2001 S0068, 7 December 2001)
Assistant Commissioner Shoyer held that it was clear on their face that certain communications to and from the QPS Solicitor were communications between a lawyer and his client employer made for the dominant purpose of either seeking or providing professional legal advice, and were exempt from disclosure under s.43(1) of the FOI Act. He also found that a copy of a transcript of evidence given to a parliamentary committee, and correspondence to the QPS from that parliamentary committee, were exempt matter under s.50(c)(i) of the FOI Act. He rejected the applicant's contention that the transcript was not exempt from disclosure to him, as the committee had previously disclosed it to him. The words ‘public disclosure’ in s.50(c)(i) were contrasted with the unqualified word "disclosure" as used in other exemption provisions in the FOI Act, in support of the finding that the parliamentary committee's prior disclosure to the applicant of the transcript of evidence was not relevant to the application of s.50(c)(i) in this instance.
The applicant's arguments on the constitutional validity of successive Queensland Parliaments were rejected in accordance with the Queensland Court of Appeal's decision in Sharples v Arnison & Ors  QCA 518.