XY and Department of Corrective Services

XY and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0615, 23 October 2006) 

XY and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0669, 23 October 2006) 

XY and Department of Corrective Services
(2005 F0670, 23 October 2006) 

This decision deals with three applications for external review made by a prisoner applicant seeking access to audio intercom recordings of the Maximum Security Unit (MSU) within the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre (AGCC) and his criminal history as held by the Department of Corrective Services (DCS).  The external review applications arose out of DCS’s failure to make a decision on the initial access application, thereby making a deemed decision to refuse access.

Sufficiency of search

With respect to the criminal history Assistant Commissioner Corby found that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that a current version of the applicant’s criminal history was in the possession or under the control of DCS and that the searches conducted by DCS were reasonable in the circumstances of the review. 

As to some of the audio intercom recordings of the MSU, DCS provided a statutory declaration attesting that the documents sought in these applications had been destroyed (i.e., taped over) due to the AGCC’s rotational recording process developed pursuant to a disposal authority, approved by Queensland State Archives.  AC Corby found that given this and that there was no evidence to the contrary, no reasonable grounds existed to believe that the recordings were in the possession or under the control of DCS.  AC Corby also found that the searches conducted by DCS were reasonable in the circumstances of the review.

s.44(1) - Shared personal affairs

With respect to the balance of audio recordings requested under these reviews, DCS objected to the disclosure of them to the applicant under s.44(1) of the FOI Act on the grounds that they involved shared personal affairs of the applicant and other prisoners of the MSU which cannot be severed.  

AC Corby relied on Stewart and Department of Transport (1993) 1 QAR 227 (which confirmed the approach taken in Re Lapidos and Office of Corrections (No. 2) (unreported, Victorian Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Jones J, 19 February 1990)) in finding that information concerning what happens to a prisoner while in prison concerns the “personal affairs” of a prisoner. AC Corby also found that the shared personal affairs of other prisoners could not be severed and as such the recordings were prima facie exempt from disclosure under s.44(1). 

AC Corby was satisfied that public interest considerations favouring disclosure were insufficient to outweigh the public interest consideration against disclosure of the recordings and as such found the recordings were exempt from disclosure under s.44(1) of the FOI Act.