Snelling v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2017] NSWCATAD 147

Snelling v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2017] NSWCATAD 147

The Tribunal accepted Ms Mackson's evidence that the dominant purpose for generating both reports was submission to Cabinet for its consideration. Each report constituted information contained in a document prepared for that dominant purpose. Although the Applicant had been given expectations that a report would be released publicly, the reports were not released and public disclosure had not been approved by the Premier or Cabinet, so cl 2(2)(a) did not apply. The First Respondent therefore had reasonable grounds for claiming the reports were Cabinet Information, satisfying s 106(1), and the determinations refusing access were affirmed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Decisions Refusing Access to Government Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Principal Judgment
Outcome
The decisions under review are affirmed.
Legal Topics
['cabinet Information' 'overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure' 'dominant Purpose' 'reasonable Grounds for Agency Claim']
['administrative Law' 'government Information Access'] ['cabinet Information' 'overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure' 'dominant Purpose' 'reasonable Grounds for Agency Claim']

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 Decisions Refusing Access to Government Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there were reasonable grounds for the First Respondent's claim that the Deloitte Report and Review Report were Cabinet Information under cl 2(1)(b) and (c) of Schedule 1 to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009." "Whether the reports were prepared for the dominant purpose of being submitted to Cabinet for Cabinet's consideration." 'Whether public disclosure had been approved by the Premier or Cabinet so that the reports were not Cabinet Information under cl 2(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal accepted Ms Mackson's evidence that the dominant purpose for generating both reports was submission to Cabinet for its consideration. Each report constituted information contained in a document prepared for that dominant purpose. Although the Applicant had been given expectations that a report would be released publicly, the reports were not released and public disclosure had not been approved by the Premier or Cabinet, so cl 2(2)(a) did not apply. The First Respondent therefore had reasonable grounds for claiming the reports were Cabinet Information, satisfying s 106(1), and the determinations refusing access were affirmed.

Court Disposition

The decisions under review are affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decisions under review are affirmed.']