Klaric v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 153

Klaric v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 153

The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal made no error of law. Once the Tribunal formed the opinion required by s 107(2) of the GIPA Act, it was required to hear confidential evidence and argument in Mr Klaric's absence, and lack of notice of a hearing to be held in his absence did not breach procedural fairness. The Tribunal correctly applied s 60(1)(b) by considering whether substantially the same information had been previously sought and whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the Commissioner would make a different decision, rather than rehearing the merits of the previous application. The Tribunal properly considered the evidence, including searches undertaken, in affirming...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Tribunal Decision Concerning Access to Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal on questions other than questions of law refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['gipa Access Application' 'overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure' 'refusal to Deal With Repeat Access Application' 'information Not Held by Agency' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal' 'apprehended Bias']
['administrative Law' 'government Information Access' 'civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedure'] ['gipa Access Application' 'overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure' 'refusal to Deal With Repeat Access Application' 'information Not Held by Agency' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal' 'apprehended Bias']

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

Appeal From Tribunal Decision Concerning Access to Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal denied procedural fairness by conducting a confidential hearing in the absence of Mr Klaric.' "Whether the Tribunal erred in affirming the Commissioner's refusal to deal with Items 1-12 under s 60(1)(b) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009." 'Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the Commissioner did not hold further information sought by Mr Klaric.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in finding an overriding public interest against disclosure of redacted information.' 'Whether an inaccurate notation about when Item 25 information was released justified appellate intervention.' 'Whether leave should be granted to appeal on grounds other than questions of law.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal made no error of law. Once the Tribunal formed the opinion required by s 107(2) of the GIPA Act, it was required to hear confidential evidence and argument in Mr Klaric's absence, and lack of notice of a hearing to be held in his absence did not breach procedural fairness. The Tribunal correctly applied s 60(1)(b) by considering whether substantially the same information had been previously sought and whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the Commissioner would make a different decision, rather than rehearing the merits of the previous application. The Tribunal properly considered the evidence, including searches undertaken, in affirming...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal on questions other than questions of law refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused for Mr Klaric to appeal on questions other than questions of law.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']