Exempt information - Law enforcement and public safety

The Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld)¹ (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. Sections 10(2) and 10(6) provide that where certain conditions are met, this otherwise exempt information will not be exempt.

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.

Non-exemptions under 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).

10(2)(a) - law enforcement investigation has exceeded the limits imposed by law

Several Commissioner decisions have considered this provision.³ In Flori, the Commissioner referred to Isles and explained that for the provision to apply, a decision-maker would generally need to have available to them some form of objective and authoritative finding that the scope of a law enforcement investigation had exceeded the limits imposed by law and that the information subject to the access application consisted of material revealing this.

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. The expectation must be reasonably based, not irrational, absurd or ridiculous,⁴ and there must be must be more than a mere possibility (ie speculative, conjectural or hypothetical)⁵ or risk⁶ regarding the consequence.

Example

In O’Connor,⁷ 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.

Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause the result in question is an objective test to be approached from the view point of the reasonable decision-maker.⁸ Importantly, the expectation must arise as a result of disclosure, rather than from other circumstances.

Decision maker should also refer to the discussion in Law Abiding Firearms Owners Inc and Queensland Police Service⁹ 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.¹⁰ 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.

Example

In Latemore,¹¹ 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.¹²

'The law' extends beyond criminal law to upholding or enforcing the civil law.¹³ However, 'enforcement or administration of the law' does not extend to an agency's general power to carry out its activities for the benefit of the public.¹⁴

To apply 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.¹⁵

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.¹⁶

In deciding whether there was an implicit mutual understanding of confidence, the following factors may be relevant:¹⁷

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.

This exemption cannot apply where the identity of the information provider is known or can be easily discovered in some other way. However, the provision can apply where applicant claims to already know the identity of a confidential source but is seeking official confirmation of their suspicions via the RTI Act.

The Commissioner considered the exemption in R63 and Department of Transport and Main Roads¹⁸ in relation to details of, and related to, a health professional who notified the department of the applicant's unfitness to drive under the legislative notification regime. She affirmed the department's decision that release of the information 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.

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.¹⁹ It is not enough to unquestioningly accept the views of the person claiming to be in danger.

Example

In Courier-Mail and Queensland Police Service²⁰ 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.²¹ The Information Commissioner has noted that, because section 10(1)(d) refers to a ‘serious’ act of harassment or intimidation, some degree of harassment or intimidation must be permissible before the exemption will apply.²²

In Sheridan, 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'.²³ 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.²⁴ 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.²⁵

There must also be a causal link between the disclosure of the information and the expected conduct.²⁶ For example, this link has been found to exist where there was evidence that such conduct occurred as a result of the release of similar information in the past.²⁷

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 Roads²⁸ 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,²⁹ 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)³⁰ 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-General³¹ 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 the applicant’s interactions with Departmental officers.

Other relevant cases

Decision makers should refer also to:

Toogood and Cassowary Coast Regional Council³²
O79LUWW and Department of Justice and Attorney-General³³
Conde and Queensland Police Service;³⁴ and
P06DKS and Queensland Police Service^,35 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.³⁶

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.³⁷
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.³⁸

Note

The Information Commissioner has recognised that prejudice to a fair trial can occur if disclosure could prejudice the prosecution as well as the defence.³⁹

In 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).⁴⁰

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.⁴¹

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).

Example

In Uksi and Redcliffe City Council; Cook (Third Party),⁴² 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 10(1)(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);⁴³ or
maintenance or enforcement of a lawful method or procedure for protecting public safety.⁴⁴

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.⁴⁵

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.

However, the exemption is not limited to secret systems.⁴⁶ 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.

Examples

In V29,⁴⁷ 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.⁴⁸

Refer also to the discussion at paragraphs 65-67 in Y46 and Queensland Police Service.⁴⁹

In Gold Coast Bulletin and Department of Police⁵⁰ 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.

Examples

In Nine Network Australia and Department of Justice and Attorney-General⁵¹ 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.

This was also the case in Law Abiding Firearms Owners Inc and Queensland Police Service,⁵² where the applicant had sought access to weapons act licences and registered weapons by postcode of licence holder. The Commissioner considered the firearms licensing and registration scheme and considered that it was one of the methods and procedures used by police to protect public safety with respect to the monitoring of firearm possession and use.

The disclosure of the information sought by the applicant could not, however, reasonably be expected to prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of that method or procedure as there was no evidence to “demonstrate a causational link between the disclosure of the requested information and any reasonable expectation of prejudice to the maintenance or enforcement of the firearms licensing and registration system.”⁵³

Refer also to the discussion in Seven Network (Operations) Limited and Logan City Council.⁵⁴

Security of a building, structure or vehicle - 10(1)(h)

Under schedule 3, section 10(1)(h) of the RTI Act, information will be exempt if its disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of a building, structure or vehicle.

For this provision to apply, the agency:

must be able to identify a building, structure or vehicle;
generally must be able to identify the precise nature of the endangerment to its security,⁵⁵ which may be evident from the information.

The Commissioner has previously considered the exemption in relation to the following types of buildings, structures, and vehicles:

residential houses
a prison
the Maximum Security Unit of a prison
an itinerant food van
parking meter machines; and
hotels, clubs and casinos.

Whether disclosing information could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of a building, structure or vehicle is determined with regard to the circumstances of the case.

Example

In YW87TN and Department of Justice and Attorney-General⁵⁶ the Right to Information Commission considered the age of the information in issue, similar information that was publicly available and the existing likelihood of criminal activity at relevant venues in determining whether an expectation of endangerment was reasonable in the circumstances

Disclosing the best access points for illegal entry to a building⁵⁷ or, for staff in a prison's Maximum Security Unit, the method and time of their movements and certain of their security measures⁵⁸ could reasonably be expected to result in endangerment to the security of a relevant building.

However, disclosure of the ten most profitable hotel gaming machine venues in Queensland⁵⁹ or parking meter revenue⁶⁰ was found to not be reasonably expected to result in endangerment to the security of a relevant building or structure.

Identifiable system or procedure - 10(1)(i)

Similar to sections 10(1)(f) and (g), the prejudice under section 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.⁶¹

Section 10(1)(i) was discussed in EC71OC, where the applicant applied for information which had been provided to Crime Stoppers.⁶² The Commissioner decided the information was exempt under section 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.⁶³

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. However, an Act can override this right and compel a person to answer even if the answer would tend to incriminate them.

Example

Section 172 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (WHS Act) sets out that a person is not excused from answering questions or providing information or documents just because the answers, information or documents would tend to incriminate the person or expose them to a penalty.

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;⁶⁴ 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 use that power, the information cannot be exempt from release under this section. It is not sufficient that the party from whom the information was acquired may have felt compelled to cooperate or that it was pragmatic to provide information; there must be sufficient evidence that the compulsory power was actually exercised against them.⁶⁵ In INEX, the Assistant Commissioner found that section 172 of the WHS Act was not relied on and therefore the information was not exempt under section 10(3).

Does the relevant Act abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination?

The information must have been given under an Act that abrogated the privilege against self-incrimination. That is, the relevant legislation must require the person giving the information to do so, regardless of whether that information may be self-incriminating.

For example, section 172 of the WHS Act (see above) clearly abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination.

However, even in the absence of a specific legislative provision, an Act can still abrogate the privilege. In Wolfe and Queensland Police Service,⁶⁶ the Commissioner found that a regulatory scheme which directed Queensland Police Service officers to answer questions in the course of police disciplinary investigations meant that the information was given under compulsion. The combined operation of legislation and departmental policy and directions resulted in the privilege against self-incrimination being overridden when officers were directed to answer questions under those instruments. Accordingly, access to information given in such circumstances could be refused on the ground that it was exempt.

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.

Non-exemption

Under section 10(6) 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.

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, section 10(5)(c).

While some of the information was about the applicant,⁶⁷ one of requirements of section 10(6), it was not clear the provision would apply as there had been no investigation which could be finalised, that being the other criteria of section 10(6). However, even if the provision had applied, the documents would still have been exempt under section 10(1)(i) as their release would have prejudiced a system for the protection of persons, property, or the environment.⁶⁸

1 And Chapter 3 of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld).
2 Agency includes a Minister.
3 Isles and Queensland Police Service [2017] QICmr 1 (12 January 2017) (Isles), Flori and Queensland Police Service [2017] QICmr 5 (16 February 2017) (Flori), Eaves and Queensland Police Service [2017] QICmr 23 (30 June 2017), Kyriakou and Queensland Police Service [2017] QICmr 29 (9 August 2017), Kyriakou and Queensland Police Service [2017] QICmr 30 (9 August 2017), Kyriakou and Queensland Police Service [2017] QICmr 31 (9 August 2017), Morse and Queensland Police Service [2017] QICmr 38 (31 August 2017) and Cutts and Queensland Police Service [2017] QICmr 39 (31 August 2017).
4 Attorney-General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 64 ALR 97 at 106.
5 McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury (2006) 229 ALR 187 at 204.
6 Neary and State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 107 at paragraph 35.
7 O’Connor and Queensland Police Service, (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 25 June 2013).
8 Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298 citing Neary v State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 107.
9 [2019] QICmr 46 (25 October 2019) at paragraph 22.
10 Schedule 3, section 10(1)(a); this includes revenue law.
11 Latemore and Department of Police (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 25 February 2011).
12 Schedule 3, section 10(1)(b).
13 McEniery and the Medical Board of Queensland (1994) 1 QAR 349 (McEniery) at paragraphs 37 and 50, in the context of the repealed FOI Act.
14 Byrne and Gold Coast City Council (1994) 1 QAR 477 at paragraph 17.
15 See McEniery, particularly paragraphs 16-45, for further analysis of these requirements.
16 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.
17 McEniery.
18 [2021] QICmr 36 (14 July 2021).
19 Murphy and Queensland Treasury (1995) 2 QAR 744 at paragraph 47.
20 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 15 Feb 2013).
21 Schedule 3, section 10(1)(d).
22 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).
23 Sheridan at paragraph 199.
24 Conde and Queensland Police Service (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 18 October 2012).
25 J6Q8CH and Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2018] QICmr 49 (10 December 2018) (J6Q8CH) at paragraph 32; the applicant had previously been convicted of using a carriage service to harass and menace.
26 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 28 March 2012) at paragraph 21 adopting the reasoning in Sheridan at paragraph 307, Watson v Office of the Information Commissioner Qld [2015] QCATA 95.
27 Mathews and University of Queensland (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 21 September 2012) at paragraph 48.
28 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 28 August 2013) and (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 19 September 2014).
29 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 28 March 2012)
30 [2020] QICmr 23 (20 April 2020)
31 [2018] QICmr 49 (10 December 2018) (J6Q8CH), see footnote 26.
32 [2018] QICmr 13 (22 March 2018).
33 [2018] QICmr 45 (2 November 2018).
34 See footnote 25.
35 [2018] QICmr 29 (15 June 2018).
36 Schedule 3, section 10(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
37 In the context of section 42(1)(d) of the repealed FOI Act.
38 Uksi and Redcliffe City Council; Cook (Third Party) (1995) 2 QAR 629 (Uksi)at paragraphs 34-35.
39 John Dale and Australian Federal Police [1997] 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 Coal Mines Pty Ltd and Millard and Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 26 June 2012) (North Goonyella).
40 North Goonyella at paragraph 23.
41 North Goonyella at paragraph 26.
42 (1995) 2 QAR 629 (Uski), see footnote 36.
43 Schedule 3, section 10(1)(f).
44 Schedule 3, section 10(1)(g).
45 T and Department of Health (1994) 1 QAR 386.
46 [2020] QICmr 10 (21 February 2020) (V29) at paragraph 15.
47 See also A87 and Queensland Police Service [2019] QICmr 37 (3 September 2019). See also and H30 and Queensland Police Service [2019] QICmr 44 (14 October 2019) and E70 and Hon Dr Steven Miles MP, Minister for Health and Minister for Ambulance Services [2019] QICmr 58 (11 December 2019).
48 At paragraph 17.
49 [2020] QICmr 3 (4 February 2020).
50 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 23 December 2010).
51 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 14 February 2012).
52 See footnote 9.
53 Law Abiding Firearms Owners Inc and Queensland Police Service at paragraph 30.
54 [2018] QICmr 21 (11 May 2018).
55 Scott and Queensland Corrective Services (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 29 May 2007) (Scott).
56 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 10 January 2012) (YW87TN).
57 NK & DK and Pine River Shire Council; Another (Third Party) (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 6 June 2007) at paragraph 26 under the now repealed FOI Act.
58 Scott.
59 YW87TN.
60 Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd and Brisbane City Council (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 7 June 2012).
61 EC71OC and Queensland Police Service [2019] QICmr 24 (27 June 2019) (EC71OC).
62 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 fit with the non-exemption provision and as such it was necessary to consider other exempt information provisions.
63 See the discussion beginning at paragraph 30.
64 Independent Extrusions Pty Limited and Department of Education; V20 (Third Party) [2020] QICmr 32 (12 June 2020) (INEX).See also Nugent v Ian Stewart (Commissioner of Police) & Anor [2015] QSC 338 and Godwin and Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 17 January 2011), which decided under the equivalent provisions in the now repealed Freedom of Information Act 1992.
65 INEX.
66 (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 30 June 2016).
67 EC71OC at paragraph 25, noting that the remainder was not the applicant’s personal information as it was not about him.
68 See the discussion above at section 10(1)(i).

Current as at: September 5, 2022