Salmon v Corrective Services NSW [2016] NSWCATAD 257

Salmon v Corrective Services NSW [2016] NSWCATAD 257

The Respondent did not establish that disclosure of the Riviere email could reasonably be expected to have any of the asserted effects under clauses 2(a), 2(b), 3(f) or 4(d) of the Table to section 14 of the GIPA Act. Mr Riviere's identity and the identities of relevant related persons were already known, there was no evidence that disclosure would prejudice future supply of information, law enforcement, or investigations, and any possible legitimate legal action by the Applicant would not amount to harm, serious harassment or serious intimidation for clause 3(f). Any business or professional consequences would flow from action taken by the Applicant rather than from release of the email...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Refusal of Access to Government Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
The decision under review was set aside; the Riviere email was ordered to be released; the application for a referral under section 112 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 was refused; and publication of the headings and paragraphs identified as not for publication was prohibited.
Legal Topics
['access Application' 'overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure' 'public Interest Balancing' 'risk of Harm, Serious Harassment or Serious Intimidation' 'informant Identity and Law Enforcement Considerations' 'legitimate Business, Commercial, Professional or Financial Interests' 'referral for Improper Conduct Under Section 112 of the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009']
['administrative Law' 'government Information Access'] ['access Application' 'overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure' 'public Interest Balancing' 'risk of Harm, Serious Harassment or Serious Intimidation' 'informant Identity and Law Enforcement Considerations' 'legitimate Business, Commercial, Professional or Financial Interests' 'referral for Improper Conduct Under Section 112 of the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009']

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 Refusal of Access to Government Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Riviere email should be released to the Applicant under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.' 'Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal or tend to reveal the identity of an informant or prejudice the future supply of information from an informant.' 'Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the prevention, detection or investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of the law or prejudice enforcement of the law.' 'Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to expose a person to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation.' "Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice any person's legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests." 'Whether the Tribunal should make a referral under section 112 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent did not establish that disclosure of the Riviere email could reasonably be expected to have any of the asserted effects under clauses 2(a), 2(b), 3(f) or 4(d) of the Table to section 14 of the GIPA Act. Mr Riviere's identity and the identities of relevant related persons were already known, there was no evidence that disclosure would prejudice future supply of information, law enforcement, or investigations, and any possible legitimate legal action by the Applicant would not amount to harm, serious harassment or serious intimidation for clause 3(f). Any business or professional consequences would flow from action taken by the Applicant rather than from release of the email...

Court Disposition

The decision under review was set aside; the Riviere email was ordered to be released; the application for a referral under section 112 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 was refused; and publication of the headings and paragraphs identified as not for publication was prohibited.

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is set aside.' 'The decision is made that the email response from Marc Riviere to the Manager, Information Access & Privacy United dated on or around 13 December 2013 is released.' 'The application for a referral pursuant to section 112 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act...