Ferns v Commissoner of Police, NSW Police & anor [2006] NSWADT 198

Ferns v Commissoner of Police, NSW Police & anor [2006] NSWADT 198

Documents 1, 7, and 8 (except for the first two pages of document 8) were created by the CIG in the exercise of its intelligence functions and are thus exempt under clause 4(3B); for other documents, the first respondent did not sufficiently establish exemption under either the law enforcement or business affairs exemption.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Review of Access Refusal (freedom of Information) / Final Merits Decision
Outcome
Mixed: Partial affirmance and partial setting aside of agency decision
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'exempt Documents' 'business Affairs Exemption' 'law Enforcement and Public Safety Exemption']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['access to Documents' 'exempt Documents' 'business Affairs Exemption' 'law Enforcement and Public Safety Exemption']

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

Tribunal Review of Access Refusal (freedom of Information) / Final Merits Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents are exempt from disclosure under clause 4(3B) (law enforcement and public safety) of Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989' 'Whether documents are exempt from disclosure under clause 7 (business affairs) of Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989' "Proper interpretation of 'created by' under clause 4(3B)" "Whether Department of Corrective Services is engaged in 'business' for purposes of exemption"]

Ratio Decidendi

Documents 1, 7, and 8 (except for the first two pages of document 8) were created by the CIG in the exercise of its intelligence functions and are thus exempt under clause 4(3B); for other documents, the first respondent did not sufficiently establish exemption under either the law enforcement or business affairs exemption.

Court Disposition

Mixed: Partial affirmance and partial setting aside of agency decision

Orders

  • ['The decision of the first respondent to refuse the applicant access to document 1, 7 and 8 (with the exception of the first two pages, being a fax cover sheet and a one page letter from the Department to the second respondent) is affirmed.' 'The decision of the first respondent to refuse the applicant access to...