The Right to Information Act 20091 (Qld) (RTI Act) gives people the right to access documents in the possession or control of Queensland government agencies2. This right of access is subject to some limitations. These limitations include information which is exempt from release under schedule 3 of the RTI Act.
Law enforcement and public safety information provisions
Schedule 3, section 10 of the RTI Act provides that certain kinds of information relating to law enforcement and public safety are exempt from release. Exceptions to specific exemptions are contained in sections 10(2) and 10(6).
This guideline explains the most used provisions in section 10, apart from section 10(4). Section 10(4), which relates to information obtained, used or prepared for an investigation by a prescribed crime body, is covered in the Crime and Corruption Commission guideline.
For more information refer to the Annotated Legislation.3
Exceptions to schedule 3, section 10(1)
Schedule 3, section 10(2) lists information which is not exempt under section 10(1). Before considering the provisions of section 10(1), decision makers should first ensure the information is not listed in section 10(2).
Could reasonably be expected to
Much of the information in section 10(1) will only be exempt if disclosing the information could reasonably be expected to result in one of the specified outcomes. For example, information is exempt information if its disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger a person’s life or physical safety. To rely on one of these provisions, there must be a reasonably based expectation that the consequence identified in the exemption will follow as a result of the information being disclosed. A mere possibility, speculation or conjecture regarding the consequence is insufficient.
In O’Connor,4 the applicant sought access to information about himself, his child, and his partner from the Queensland Police Service (QPS).
QPS refused access to the information on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of the law.
QPS had not yet finalised its investigation and it was reasonable to expect that disclosure would prejudice the investigation. The Assistant Information Commissioner affirmed QPS’s decision and refused access to the report.
Decision maker should also refer to the discussion in Law Abiding Firearms Owners Inc and Queensland Police Service  QICmr 46 25 October 2019 at paragraph 22 where the Commissioner concluded that disclosure could not reasonably be expected to cause the prejudice in question.
Prejudice an investigation - 10(1)(a)
Information is exempt from disclosure if its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of the law.5 This exemption is not confined to criminal investigations and can apply in a range of circumstances, for example:
- investigations by environmental compliance officers into breaches of environmental regulations or licence contraventions
- investigations by local government officers into breaches of local law
- investigations into breaches of liquor licensing laws; and
- misconduct investigations.
Generally, if an investigation has been finalised the exemption will not apply, as it is unlikely that disclosure of information could prejudice a concluded investigation.
There are several ways in which disclosure of information can potentially prejudice a current investigation. For example, premature disclosure of information about witnesses in a workplace investigation could undermine the effectiveness of the investigation.
In Latemore,6 the Right to Information Commissioner found that disclosing to the applicant diary notes and emails of certain QPS officers relating to matters in an ongoing investigation, prior to QPS finalising the investigation, could reasonably be expected to "severely jeopardise the integrity of the entire investigation by enabling persons subject to the investigation to construct defences, create alibis, tamper with evidence and interfere with witnesses". The Right to Information Commissioner affirmed the QPS decision to refuse access to the information in issue.
Confidential sources of information - 10(1)(b)
Information is exempt if its disclosure could reasonably be expected to enable the existence or identity of a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law, to be ascertained.7 If applying this provision, the following must be established:
* there must be a confidential source of information
* the information supplied by the confidential source must relate to the enforcement or administration of the law; and
* it must be reasonable to expect that disclosing the information in question would enable the identity or existence of the confidential source to be ascertained.8
An information provider will be a confidential source if the agency gave an express assurance to the information provider that their identity would be kept confidential or surrounding circumstances indicate that there was an implicit mutual understanding of confidentiality between the parties.9
In deciding whether there was an implicit mutual understanding of confidence, the following factors may be relevant:10
- nature and sensitivity of the information given
- relationship of the information provider to the person(s) about whom the information was given
- the manner in which the information was imparted
- whether the information provider is comparable to an informer, for example a ‘whistleblower’ or witness
- whether it could have been reasonably understood by both the information provider and the agency that the agency could take action on the information provided, without identifying the information provider
- whether there is any real risk of harassment or other detriment to the information provider; and
- any indication of the information provider's desire or request, at the time of providing the information, to have their identity kept confidential.
Endanger life or physical safety - 10(1)(c)
Information is exempt if its disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger a person's life or physical safety.
When deciding if information is exempt under this section, it is important to objectively review all relevant evidence, including any evidence obtained from, or about, the alleged source of danger.11 It is not enough to unquestioningly accept the views of the person claiming to be in danger.
In Courier-Mail and Queensland Police Service12 the applicant sought access to documents about suicides at specific locations, which the agency refused. The agency submitted—and provided evidence supporting—that release of the information, and the inevitable reporting of it, would lead to an increase in the number of people who either attempt or completed acts of suicide at the specific locations.
The Information Commissioner found that:
- disclosing the information in issue could reasonably be expected to lead to an increase in the number of people who either attempt or complete acts of suicide at the specific location; and therefore
- the information in issue was exempt information under schedule 3, section 10(1)(c) of the RTI Act.
Serious act of harassment or intimidation - 10(1)(d)
Information will be exempt if its disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in a person being subjected to a serious act of harassment or intimidation.13
In Sheridan,14 the Information Commissioner found that a serious act of harassment means an action that 'attacks, disturbs or torments a person and that causes concern or apprehension or has undesired consequences'15. The Information Commissioner specifically observed that:
- acts which induce fear or force a person into some action by inducing fear or apprehension are acts of intimidation
- acts of intimidation which have undesired consequences or cause concern and/or apprehension are serious acts of intimidation
- acts which persistently trouble, disturb or torment a person are acts of harassment; and
- acts of harassment which have undesired consequences or cause concern and/or apprehension are serious acts of harassment.
Importantly, the Information Commissioner decided that the exemption can apply even where only a single act of serious harassment is expected to result from disclosure of the information.
It is not necessary to demonstrate a likelihood of criminal behaviour, such as assault or unlawful stalking in a criminal sense, for the behaviour to be considered serious.16 Evidence of a criminal conviction is not a requirement to establish that the exemption applies, but it may be relevant that the applicant has been convicted of related offences.17
Past conduct of the applicant and the nature of the information
Past conduct of the applicant and the nature of the information can be relevant when making the decision.
In two Mathews and Department of Transport and Main Roads18 decisions, the Information Commissioner considered the release of information that identified individuals. The applicant maintained a website on which he had previously placed information released to him under RTI. It contained information about individuals, many of whom were public service officers, accompanied by offensive and abusive remarks.
The website had the stated malicious intention of causing professional detriment and affecting the individual’s future employment prospects. Based on the nature of the information and the past conduct of the applicant the Information Commissioner was satisfied that serious acts of harassment or intimidation could reasonably be expected to occur as a result of disclosing the information.
In Richards and Gold Coast City Council,19 the applicant had a history of persistently making abusive and threatening contact with agency staff, elected representatives, and their family members outside work hours on private and mobile phone numbers. Significant amounts of the applicant’s communications with the agency were abusive, rude, threatening, and/or harassing; the agency had a security plan in place to protect specific persons from the applicant.
The Information Commissioner considered the applicant’s past conduct provided a reasonable basis for agency staff and elected representatives to expect to be subjected to further serious acts of harassment or intimidation.
In establishing a link between the disclosure of the information in issue and the expected act of serious harassment or intimidation, the Information Commissioner noted that the subject matter of the information had previously elicited a strong response from the applicant, the applicant had been in dispute with Council for many years, and the applicant’s conduct had detrimentally impacted Council staff and elected representatives. Accordingly, the relevant information was found to be exempt information under schedule 3, section 10(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
In S90 and Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland; T38 (Third Party)20 the applicant had made a complaint to the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland (VSBQ) about a veterinarian’s treatment of her dog, and later applied for documents related to that complaint.
The Commissioner found that the documents were exempt because disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in a serious act of harassment or intimidation because:
- There was a history of acrimony between the applicant and the veterinarian who treated the applicant’s dog.
- The applicant’s past behaviour demonstrated a tendency to engage in behaviour which is harassing or intimidating when engaging with individuals providing a service to, or responding to complaints by or about, the applicant and, in the circumstances, it was reasonably likely that the applicant’s pattern of past behaviour would be repeated in the future.
- The applicant’s complaints and threats of legal action were designed to ‘persistently disturb’ and ‘torment’ the VSBQ, the veterinary practice, the treating veterinarian and third parties and that the applicant did not consider this pattern of behaviour constituted harassment.
- The combined effect of the applicant’s actions had the effect of tormenting and wearing down particular individuals, including the treating veterinarian and staff at the VSBQ and the relevant behaviour was a cause for concern or apprehension that had previously resulted in distressing and undesired consequences.
- The evidence suggested that the applicant’s propensity to engage in harassing behaviour could be directly attributed to being involved in situations which caused her distress and the Commissioner considered that releasing the information would be highly likely to be a trigger point for the applicant to again be placed in circumstances of distress and therefore result in harassment.
In J6Q8CH and Department of Justice and Attorney-General21 (J6Q8CH) the Commissioner found that disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to result in a serious act of harassment or intimidation because of the applicant’s pattern of unreasonable behaviour, which constituted serious harassment for the purposes of the RTI Act.
The applicant had a demonstrated history of enmity towards various public sector offices and officers employed at a number of those public sector offices and had:
- previously threatened to harm certain Department staff
- previously been convicted of using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend, engaged in hostile correspondence with various public sector officers, including Department officers, and
- employed hostile and inflammatory language in her verbal communications with Department officers.
The Commissioner also considered the applicant’s prior conviction for using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend. She determined that it was relevant when determining whether there was a reasonable expectation that serious harassment would arise as a result of disclosing information which included the names and contact details of public sector officers and records about he applicant’s interactions with Departmental officers.
Other relevant cases
Decision makers should refer also to:
- Toogood and Cassowary Coast Regional Council  QICmr 13 (22 March 2018)
- O79LUWW and Department of Justice and Attorney-General  QICmr 45 (2 November 2018)
- Conde and Queensland Police Service (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 18 October 2012); and
- P06DKS and Queensland Police Service  QICmr 29 (15 June 2018), in which the Commissioner found that disclosure could not reasonably be expected to lead to serious harassment or intimidation.
Prejudice a fair trial or impartial adjudication of a case - 10(1)(e)
Information is exempt if its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice a person’s fair trial or the impartial adjudication of a case.21
- A person’s fair trial does not refer to a civil suit between parties but to the trial of a person charged with a criminal offence.23
- Impartial adjudication of a case is broad enough to refer to any kind of case involving a dispute between parties which is to be formally adjudicated by an impartial decision-maker.24
The Information Commissioner has recognised that prejudice to a fair trial can occur if disclosure could prejudice the prosecution as well as the defence.25
In North Goonyella Coal Mines Pty Ltd and Millard and Department of Natural Resources and Mines26 (North Goonyella) the information in issue related to the agency’s decision to prosecute the applicants and not to any issues relating to the current trial in which the applicants were actually being prosecuted. The agency submitted that disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in the following prejudice to a person’s fair trial:
- the defence would raise irrelevant matters beyond the scope of the elements of the offence, which would detract from the effectiveness of the prosecution; and
- the prosecution would be required to address allegations about motivations, reasoning, alternate compliance options and the decision to prosecute (which are issues beyond the scope of proof of the elements of the issues under trial).27
The Assistant Information Commissioner considered it relevant that the applicant’s representatives were legal professionals with professional standards of ethics and behaviour and that the court itself had mechanisms for both establishing the relevance of issues and arguments presented to it and for dealing with conduct it identified as inappropriate.28 She considered that there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that disclosure would result in the outcomes the agency had suggested would occur and, even if they did, the courts had sufficient mechanisms to deal with such behaviour. As such, the information in issue was not exempt under schedule 3, section 10(1)(e).
In Uksi and Redcliffe City Council; Cook (Third Party) (1995) 2 QAR 629, the Information Commissioner found that disclosing an engineer’s report could not reasonably be expected to prejudice the impartial adjudication of anticipated civil litigation because it was the type of document which a court would likely compel the applicants to disclose in the course of preparations for hearing, in the interests of a fair hearing of the issues.
Lawful method or procedure - 10(1)(f) and (g)
Information is exempt if its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the:
- effectiveness of a lawful method or procedure for preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with a contravention or possible contravention of the law (including revenue law);29 or
- maintenance or enforcement of a lawful method or procedure for protecting public safety.30
The method or procedure must be lawful. Accordingly, the exemption does not protect information relating to unlawful investigative methods or procedures, for example unauthorised telephone tapping.
Schedule 3, section 10(1)(f)
The prejudice required for this section is to the effectiveness of the procedure. The following elements must be met for information to be exempt under these provisions:
- an identifiable lawful method or procedure used by the agency for preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with a contravention or possible contravention of the law; and
- the agency has a reasonable basis for expecting that disclosure of the matter in issue could prejudice (that is, reduce the effectiveness or usefulness of) that method or procedure.31
This exemption will often arise when the investigating agency has adopted a relatively secret or covert method or procedure. If people were to become aware of the use of a covert procedure, or its use in particular circumstances, it could reasonably be expected to be less effective in the future in terms of preventing, detecting, investigating and dealing with contraventions of the law. It will not generally apply to routine methods or procedures used by an agency.
However, the exemption is not limited to secret systems.32 It applies to systems the existence of which is well known in the community, such as the Queensland Fixated Threat Assessment Coordination (QFTAC) system, which is designed to ensure the safety and security of subject individuals.
The exemption will not generally apply to routine methods or procedures used by an agency.
In V29 and Metro North Hospital and Health Service,33 the Commissioner considered the Health Service's progress notes relating to the applicant's QFTAC's referral. She was:
- satisfied that the evaluation of concerns by QFTAC comprised an identifiable system
- considered the QFTAC system was designed to ensure the safety and security of the subject individuals, the broader community and, in some instances, publicly/privately-owned property; and
- considered that disclosing the information to this particular applicant could reasonably be expected to prejudice the QFTAC system.
In reaching the last point, the Commissioner took into consideration that the QFTAC system is intended to detect and assess vulnerable individuals in need of mental health intervention and support and noted that:
I am satisfied, in this case, revealing to the applicant the specifics of the evaluation methods undertaken by QFTAC and the Health Service to assess the applicant’s behaviour could reasonably be expected to allow the applicant to use that information to modify their behaviour in such a way that would impact upon the effectiveness of the QFTAC system. As the applicant has also widely circulated information concerning their QFTAC referral, I consider that any broader dissemination of the information in issue, which includes QFTAC’s evaluation methods and processes, may possibly enable others to modify their behaviour in a way that could also reasonably be expected to impact upon the effectiveness of the QFTAC system.34
Refer also to the discussion at paragraphs 65-67 in Y46 and Queensland Police Service  QICmr 3 (4 February 2020).
In Gold Coast Bulletin and Department of Police35 the RTI Commissioner considered the release of police staffing rosters. The agency submitted that rosters were developed taking into account crime rates and operational requirements of the specific area and provided specific and detailed knowledge not readily available through other means that would allow criminals to 'risk manage' any planned unlawful activity.
The RTI Commissioner was satisfied that the:
- police rosters comprised a method or procedure for preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with a contravention or possible contravention of the law
- information was not readily available through other means; and
- information could be used by third parties to further criminal activity and subvert police attention.
The RTI Commissioner was therefore satisfied that disclosing the information could be expected to prejudice the effectiveness of the method or procedure of rostering.
Schedule 3, section 10(g)
While section 10(1)(f) is concerned with preserving the effectiveness of a method, section 10(1)(g) is concerned with protecting the maintenance of, or the ability to enforce, a method or procedure intended to protect public safety.
In Nine Network Australia and Department of Justice and Attorney-General36 the Information Commissioner found that compliance notices, cautions, enforceable undertakings, fines or prosecutions issued to carnival ride operators were not exempt under section 10(1)(g).
While the documents did relate to a method or procedure for protecting the public safety, the method or procedure was not prejudiced, because:
- the ride operators recognised safe rides were in their commercial interest and the voluntary process facilitated safety improvements; and
- the notices were issued under a mandatory legislative process.
Refer also to the discussion in Seven Network (Operations) Limited and Logan City Council  QICmr 21 (11 May 2018).
Identifiable system or procedure - 10(1)(i)
Similar to 10(1)(f) and (g), the prejudice under 10(1)(i) must be to a system or procedure. It will apply where:
- there exists an identifiable system or procedure,
- it is a system or procedure for the protection of persons, property or the environment; and
- disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to prejudice that system or procedure.39
10(1)(i) was discussed in EC71OC and Queensland Police Service  QICmr 24 (27 June 2019) (EC71OC), where the applicant applied for information which had been provided to Crime Stoppers.40 The Commissioner decided the information was exempt under 10(1)(i) because:
- Crime Stoppers provides an anonymous hotline for people to report crimes and suspicious activity, which is then provided to police, who distribute it to the police establishment closest to the reported crime/suspicious activity for investigation.
- These functions and methods are sufficiently coherent and organised to comprise a ‘system’, which is a system for the protection of persons, property, or the environment.
- Crime Stoppers is premised on anonymity and confidentiality; unconditional disclosure of information about or given by callers could reasonably be expected to deter or discourage people from making future Crime Stoppers reports and, by inhibiting the flow of information to Crime Stoppers, detrimentally affect, ie prejudice, Crime Stoppers as a system for protecting persons, property or the environment.41
Information given under compulsion in an investigation
Schedule 3, section 10(3) provides that information is exempt from release if:
- it consists of information given in the course of an investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of the law (including revenue law); and
- the information was given under compulsion under an Act that abrogated the privilege against self-incrimination.
The common law privilege against self-incrimination entitles a person to refuse to answer any question, or produce any document, if the answer or the production would tend to incriminate that person.42 However, an Act can override this right and compel a person to answer even if the answer would tend to incriminate them.
Section 158 of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 gives investigators the power to require a person to attend and answer questions unless the person has a reasonable excuse; it is not a reasonable excuse for a serious accident or high potential incident that the information would tend to incriminate the person.
Decision makers need to establish the following before deciding information is exempt under this section:
- the information must have been given in the course of investigating a contravention, or possible contravention, of the law
- the Act under which the investigation was conducted must give investigators the power to compel information from a person even where it would tend to incriminate the person;43 and
- the investigators must have actually relied on that power when acquiring the information from the person.
Where an Act gives investigators the power to compel information but they did not rely on it, the information cannot be exempt from release under this section.
Crime Stoppers, State Intelligence Group, and State Security Operations Group
Schedule 3, section 10(5) provides that information is exempt from release if it consists of information obtained, used or prepared—
- for an investigation by a part of the Queensland Police Service known as the State Intelligence Group; or
- for an investigation by a part of the Queensland Police Service known as the State Security Operations Group; or
- by Crime Stoppers Queensland Limited ACN 010 995 650.
However, 10(6) creates an exception to this exemption. Information is not exempt in relation to a particular application if it consists of information about a particular applicant and the investigation has been finalised.
The Crime Stoppers exemption was discussed in EC71OC. In that decision the Commissioner was satisfied, based on the information itself and surrounding contextual information, that it had been obtained, used, or prepared by Crime Stoppers and so fit the criteria of schedule 3, 10(5)(c).
While some of the information was about the applicant,44 one of requirements of the exception in 10(6), it was not clear the exception would apply as there had been no investigation which could be finalised, that being the other criteria of 10(6). However, even if the exception had applied, the documents would still have been exempt under 10(1)(i) as their release would have prejudiced a system for the protection of persons, property, or the environment.45
10(6) creates an exception to this exemption. Information is not exempt in relation to a particular application if it consists of information about a particular applicant and the investigation has been finalised. Refer to the Crime and Corruption Commission guideline for more information.
- 1 And Chapter 3 of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld).
- 2 Agency includes a Minister.
- 3 https://www.oic.qld.gov.au/annotated-legislation/rti/schedule-3/10-law-enforcement-or-public-safety-information
- 4 O’Connor and Queensland Police Service, (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 25 June 2013).
- 5 Schedule 3, section 10(1)(a); this includes revenue law.
- 6 Latemore and Department of Police (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, February 25 2011) (Latemore)
- 7 Schedule 3, section 10(b).
- 8 See McEniery and Medical Board of Queensland (1994) 1 QAR 349, particularly paragraphs 16-45, for further analysis of these requirements.
- 9 Christophers and Redland City Council (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 6 August 2009) (Christophers). In this decision the agency had published a Customer Charter that stated: ‘When you contact Council with a request or a complaint you can expect to … have your personal details kept confidential’. The Information Commissioner decided there was an implied understanding of confidence.
- 10 McEniery in Christophers
- 11 Murphy and Queensland Treasury (1995) 2 QAR 744 at paragraph 47 (Murphy).
- 12 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 15 Feb 2013)
- 13 Schedule 3, section 10(1)(d).
- 14 Sheridan and South Burnett Regional Council, Local Government Association of Queensland Inc and Dalby Regional Council; and Crime and Misconduct Commissioner (Sheridan) (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 9 April 2009).
- 15 Sheridan at paragraph 199
- 16 Conde and Queensland Police Service (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 18 October 2012)
- 17 J6Q8CH and Department of Justice and Attorney-General  QICmr 49 (10 December 2018) at paragraph 32; the applicant had previously been convicted of using a carriage service to harass and menace..
- 18 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, August 28 2013) and (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, September 19 2014)
- 19 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 28 March 2012)
- 20  QICmr 23 (20 April 2020)
- 22  QICmr 49 (10 December 2018)
- 23 Schedule 3, section 10(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
- 24 In the context of section 42(1)(d) of the repealed FOI Act.
- 25 Uksi and Redcliffe City Council; Cook (Third Party) (1995) 2 QAR 629, at paragraphs 34-35.
- 26 John Dale and Australian Federal Police  AATA 345 (24 September 1997) considering the exemption in section 37(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), referred to in North Goonyella.
- 27 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 26 June 2012)
- 28 North Goonyella at paragraph 23
- 29 North Goonyella at paragraph 26.
- 30 Schedule 3, section 10(1)(f).
- 31 Schedule 3, section 10(1)(g).
- 32 T and Department of Health (1994) 1 QAR 386.
- 33 V29 and Metro North Hospital and Health Service QICmr 10 (21 February 2020) at paragraph 15.
- 34  QICmr 10 (21 February 2020; see also A87 and Queensland Police Service  QICmr 37 (3September 2019). See also and H30 and Queensland Police Service  QICmr 44 (14 October 2019) and E70 and Hon Dr Steven Miles MP, Minister for Health and Minister for Ambulance Services  QICmr 58 (11 December 2019).
- 35 At paragraph 17.
- 36 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 23 December 2010)
- 37 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 14 Feb 2012)
- 38  QICmr 46 (25 October 2019
- 39 Law Abiding Firearms Owners Inc and Queensland Police Service at Paragraph 30.
- 40 EC71OC and Queensland Police Service  QICmr 24 (27 June 2019)
- 41 Crime Stoppers information is subject to its own exemption—refer to the discussion at the end of the guideline—but the information in question may have fallen into the exception to the exemption and as such it was necessary to consider other exempt information provisions.
- 42 See the discussion beginning at paragraph 30.
- 43 Godwin and Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 17 January 2011), decided under the equivalent provisions in the now repealed Freedom of Information Act 1992. See also Nugent v Ian Stewart (Commissioner of Police) & Anor  QSC 338.
- 44 EC71OC, paragraph 25, noting that the remainder was not the applicant’s personal information as it was not about him.
- 45 See the discussion above at 10(1)(i).
Current as at: May 13, 2021