Stiller and Department of Justice and Attorney-General; RDR (Third party); A Referee (Fourth party)
Stiller and Department of Justice and Attorney-General; RDR (Third party); A Referee (Fourth party)
(2002 S0113, 12 January 2004)
Personal affairs
The applicant sought access to certain documents concerning the prosecution and sentencing of the third party in the District Court in relation to offences committed against minors. The documents in issue comprised a psychiatrist's report about the third party, character references provided to the Court in support of the third party, and parts of statements by five police officers involved in the investigation of the third party.
Applying the principles stated in Stewart and Department of Transport (1993) 1 QAR 227, the Deputy Information Commissioner found that, with the exception of some matter contained in the psychiatrist's report concerning the psychiatrist's professional qualifications et cetera, the matter in issue was properly to be characterised as concerning the personal affairs of persons other than the applicant, and hence that it was prima facie exempt from disclosure to the applicant under s.44(1) of the FOI Act, subject to the application of the public interest balancing test incorporated in s.44(1).
The Deputy Information Commissioner discussed in detail the various public interest considerations weighing for and against disclosure of the matter in issue. As regards the psychiatrist's report, the Deputy Information Commissioner considered that, in respect of those parts of the report which had been reproduced in the transcript of the District Court hearing or in the Court of Appeal's judgment, the weight of the public interest in protecting the third party's privacy interests had been significantly reduced. Balancing the reduced weight of the third party's privacy interests against the public interest in open justice and accountability of the criminal justice system, the Deputy Information Commissioner was satisfied that the disclosure of the relevant parts of the report would, on balance, be in the public interest. However, as regards those parts of the report which had not been published in any other forum, the Deputy Information Commissioner found that disclosure of such information would not, on balance, be in the public interest, and that it was therefore exempt under s.44(1) of the FOI Act.
As to the character references, the Deputy Information Commissioner considered that, with the exception of information relating to the third party's wife and other family members, disclosure of the references, including the authors' signatures, would enhance the public interest in scrutiny and accountability of the criminal justice system, such that disclosure would, on balance, be in the public interest. Accordingly, the Deputy Information Commissioner decided that the bulk of the information contained in the references did not qualify for exemption under s.44(1) of the FOI Act.
As to the matter in issue in the police statements, given the fact that the third party had pleaded guilty to the offences with which he was charged, together with the amount and type of information which was already publicly available in the form of the transcript of the District Court proceedings and the Court of Appeal's judgment, the Deputy Information Commissioner considered that the weight to be attributed to the public interest in protecting the third party's privacy in respect of the matter in issue was minimal. He considered that disclosure would enhance the accountability of the Queensland Police Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding their investigation and prosecution of the third party. The Deputy Information Commissioner therefore decided that disclosure of the matter in issue in the police statements would, on balance, be in the public interest and that it did not qualify for exemption under s.44(1) of the FOI Act.
