DF -v- Director General, Attorney General's Department [2002] NSWADT 164

DF -v- Director General, Attorney General's Department [2002] NSWADT 164

Most disputed material was exempt. Documents 1, 34 and 35 were reasonably connected with the Director of Public Prosecutions' prosecuting functions and were exempt from FOIA under s 9 and Schedule 2. Documents or passages concerning jury deliberations were exempt under Schedule 1, cl 11(a), and juror identity...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Determination Refusing Access to Documents Requested Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 / Principal Matter; Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The respondent was ordered to disclose agreed material and the fourth paragraph of Document 2; the determination under review was otherwise affirmed for the claimed exempt material.
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'exempt Documents' 'director of Public Prosecutions Prosecuting Functions' 'judicial Functions of Courts' 'internal Working Documents' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'privacy' 'secrecy Provisions' 'public Interest Discretion']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['access to Documents' 'exempt Documents' 'director of Public Prosecutions Prosecuting Functions' 'judicial Functions of Courts' 'internal Working Documents' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'privacy' 'secrecy Provisions' 'public Interest Discretion']

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

Application for Review of a Determination Refusing Access to Documents Requested Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 / Principal Matter; Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents relating to the applicant held by the respondent were exempt from access under the Freedom of Information Act 1989.' 'Whether documents connected with the Director of Public Prosecutions were exempt as relating to prosecuting functions under s 9 and Schedule 2.' 'Whether material disclosing jury deliberations or juror details was exempt as relating to judicial functions, privacy, or secrecy provisions.' 'Whether advice, briefing notes, and summaries of legal advice were exempt as internal working documents or by legal professional privilege.' "Whether any discretion to release exempt material should be exercised in the applicant's favour."]

Ratio Decidendi

Most disputed material was exempt. Documents 1, 34 and 35 were reasonably connected with the Director of Public Prosecutions' prosecuting functions and were exempt from FOIA under s 9 and Schedule 2. Documents or passages concerning jury deliberations were exempt under Schedule 1, cl 11(a), and juror identity information was protected by privacy considerations. Advice and briefing material in Documents 17 and 18 was exempt as internal working material under cl 9, with Document 18 also protected by legal professional privilege; the withheld sentences in Document 27 were protected by legal professional privilege. The fourth paragraph of Document 2 did not risk disclosure of jury...

Court Disposition

The respondent was ordered to disclose agreed material and the fourth paragraph of Document 2; the determination under review was otherwise affirmed for the claimed exempt material.

Orders

  • ['By consent, that the respondent disclose the whole of Document 29; and the whole of Document 17 except for the three paragraphs marked on page 2.' 'That the respondent disclose the fourth paragraph of Document 2.' 'The determination under review is affirmed in respect of the material for which exempt status has...