CJO v NSW Police Force [2016] NSWCATAD 262

CJO v NSW Police Force [2016] NSWCATAD 262

The Respondent did not discharge its burden of showing that disclosure of the three officers' names could reasonably be expected to expose any person to harm, serious harassment or serious intimidation. Although police officers may generally face risks from terror-related activities, the evidence did not establish that release of the withheld names in this matter would materially increase that risk, especially where another intelligence officer's name had been disclosed and the Respondent had previously been prepared to provide most of the information verbally. The public interest considerations in favour of disclosure outweighed those against disclosure, so there was no overriding public...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2016
Procedural Posture
External Review of Access to Government Information Decision Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / On the Papers; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Decision under review set aside; withheld information to be released.
Legal Topics
['access Application' 'overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure' 'risk of Harm, Serious Harassment or Serious Intimidation' 'names of Police Officers in Intelligence Report' 'correct and Preferable Decision']
['administrative Law' 'government Information Access'] ['access Application' 'overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure' 'risk of Harm, Serious Harassment or Serious Intimidation' 'names of Police Officers in Intelligence Report' 'correct and Preferable Decision']

Case Brief

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

External Review of Access to Government Information Decision Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / On the Papers; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant had been given access to all information he was entitled to receive under the GIPA Act.' 'Whether the names of three intelligence review officers in the Information Report should be released.' 'Whether disclosure of the withheld names could reasonably be expected to expose a person to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation under clause 3(f) of the table to section 14 of the GIPA Act.' 'Whether there was an overriding public interest against disclosure of the redacted information.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent did not discharge its burden of showing that disclosure of the three officers' names could reasonably be expected to expose any person to harm, serious harassment or serious intimidation. Although police officers may generally face risks from terror-related activities, the evidence did not establish that release of the withheld names in this matter would materially increase that risk, especially where another intelligence officer's name had been disclosed and the Respondent had previously been prepared to provide most of the information verbally. The public interest considerations in favour of disclosure outweighed those against disclosure, so there was no overriding public...

Court Disposition

Decision under review set aside; withheld information to be released.

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is set aside.' 'The decision is made that the withheld information is released.']