BY -v- Director General, Attorney General's Department (No. 2) [2003] NSWADT 37

BY -v- Director General, Attorney General's Department (No. 2) [2003] NSWADT 37

The redactions to Document 18/013088 were exempt under cl 6 because they concerned personal affairs information and disclosure would be unreasonable given the protected criminal proceedings context and suppression orders. Clause 4(1)(b) did not apply to the seven other documents because the LPAB is essentially a...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Applications for Review Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 Concerning Refusal of Access to Documents / Final Decision in Principal Matter
Outcome
The agency's determination refusing access was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'exempt Documents' 'confidential Material' 'law Enforcement and Public Safety Exemption' 'personal Affairs Exemption' 'legal Practitioner Admission']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information' 'legal Profession Regulation'] ['access to Documents' 'exempt Documents' 'confidential Material' 'law Enforcement and Public Safety Exemption' 'personal Affairs Exemption' 'legal Practitioner Admission']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Applications for Review Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 Concerning Refusal of Access to Documents / Final Decision in Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether parts of Document 18/013088 were exempt under cl 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 because disclosure would involve unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs information.' 'Whether seven documents were exempt under cl 4(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 as material that 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.' 'Whether seven documents were exempt under cl 13(b) of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 as confidential material whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice future supply of such information and would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

The redactions to Document 18/013088 were exempt under cl 6 because they concerned personal affairs information and disclosure would be unreasonable given the protected criminal proceedings context and suppression orders. Clause 4(1)(b) did not apply to the seven other documents because the LPAB is essentially a licensing authority and not engaged in the kind of law enforcement or public safety functions to which that exemption is directed. However, those seven documents were exempt under cl 13(b) because they contained information obtained in confidence, disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of such information to the LPAB, and the public interest...

Court Disposition

The agency's determination refusing access was affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The determination of the agency to refuse to grant access to the eight documents listed in the schedule dated 20 September 2002 is affirmed.']