Harris, Jennifer May McDonald v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Ors [1983] FCA 309

Harris, Jennifer May McDonald v Australian Broadcasting Corporation & Ors [1983] FCA 309

The first interim report comprised, apart from Division 4 headed Conclusions, investigative material consisting of underlying facts as perceived by Miss Pearlman and was purely factual notwithstanding provisional fact-finding; no severability difficulty arose. The second interim report was mainly recommendations and not purely factual, except for the severable Introduction and Annexures 1 and 3; occasional factual examples in the body could not be severed from their context.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 1983
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Judicial Review Concerning Access Under the Freedom of Information Act, 1982 / Further Argument Pursuant to Liberty to Apply About What Parts of Interim Reports Consisted of Purely Factual Material and Were Severable
Outcome
The first respondent was directed to give the third respondent access to specified parts of the reports, and no order was made as to costs.
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'purely Factual Material' 'severability' 'deliberative Processes' 'interim Reports']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information' 'judicial Review'] ['access to Documents' 'purely Factual Material' 'severability' 'deliberative Processes' 'interim Reports']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Judicial Review Concerning Access Under the Freedom of Information Act, 1982 / Further Argument Pursuant to Liberty to Apply About What Parts of Interim Reports Consisted of Purely Factual Material and Were Severable

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What material in the first and second interim reports consisted of purely factual material for the purposes of the order made on 4 October, 1983.' 'Whether factual material in the reports was severable from material to which access was not to be given.' 'Whether disclosure of parts only of the reports would be misleading within s.22(1)(b).']

Ratio Decidendi

The first interim report comprised, apart from Division 4 headed Conclusions, investigative material consisting of underlying facts as perceived by Miss Pearlman and was purely factual notwithstanding provisional fact-finding; no severability difficulty arose. The second interim report was mainly recommendations and not purely factual, except for the severable Introduction and Annexures 1 and 3; occasional factual examples in the body could not be severed from their context.

Court Disposition

The first respondent was directed to give the third respondent access to specified parts of the reports, and no order was made as to costs.

Orders

  • ['In accordance with order No. 2 made on 4 October, 1983 direct that the first respondent give the third respondent access to the whole of the first interim report (including its annexures) other than the material contained in Division 4 Part I thereof.' 'In accordance with order No. 2 made on 4 October, 1983 direct...