Meldru v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWCATAD 292

Meldru v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWCATAD 292

Although identifiable images of members of the public in the footage were personal information and gave significant weight to considerations against disclosure, the Applicant's personal factors and the public interest in disclosure also carried significant weight. The Respondent had not shown that reasonable attempts or inquiries were made to determine whether the footage could be edited internally or externally. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to set aside the refusal and require release of the footage edited to de-identify members of the public whose facial features were visible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of a Decision Refusing Access to Government Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The Respondent's decision was set aside to the extent that it withheld access to the 2016 video footage, and a substituted decision was made requiring edited disclosure.
Legal Topics
['gipa Access Application' 'cctv Footage' 'public Interest Balancing Test' 'personal Information' 'de Identification of Third Parties' 'information Protection Principles']
['administrative Law' 'government Information Access' 'privacy'] ['gipa Access Application' 'cctv Footage' 'public Interest Balancing Test' 'personal Information' 'de Identification of Third Parties' 'information Protection Principles']

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

Administrative Review of a Decision Refusing Access to Government Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was an overriding public interest against disclosure of the 2016 video footage identified as TRIM 9100.' "Whether disclosure of the footage could reasonably be expected to reveal third parties' personal information or contravene an information protection principle." "Whether the Applicant's personal factors and allegations about the 4 July 2016 incident favoured disclosure." 'Whether the Respondent could edit the footage to de-identify members of the public whose facial features were visible.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although identifiable images of members of the public in the footage were personal information and gave significant weight to considerations against disclosure, the Applicant's personal factors and the public interest in disclosure also carried significant weight. The Respondent had not shown that reasonable attempts or inquiries were made to determine whether the footage could be edited internally or externally. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to set aside the refusal and require release of the footage edited to de-identify members of the public whose facial features were visible.

Court Disposition

The Respondent's decision was set aside to the extent that it withheld access to the 2016 video footage, and a substituted decision was made requiring edited disclosure.

Orders

  • ["The Respondent's decision of 15 November 2016, to the extent that it withheld access to the 2016 video footage identified as TRIM 9100, is set aside." 'In substitution, in accordance with these reasons, the Tribunal orders the Respondent to provide a copy of the 2016 video footage to the Applicant, edited to...