ECN v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 153

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: ECN v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 153 Hearing dates: 10 March 2020 Date of orders: 19 June 2020 Decision date: 19 June 2020 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J Lonsdale, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision of the respondent is set aside in respect of documents 5, 9, 22 and 23 and in substitution for that decision the respondent is to disclose those documents to the applicant within 28 days of the publication of these reasons. (2) The decision of the respondent is varied in respect of documents 1, 2 and 3 in that the following parts of those documents are to be disclosed to the applicant within 28 days of the publication of these reasons: (a) Document 1 (excluding the words commencing at "that" and concluding with "officer" in paragraphs 1 and 2 as well as the words commencing at "It is" and concluding with "standard") is to be disclosed to the applicant. (b) Page 1 of document 2 (excluding the words commencing at "Issue 2:" and concluding "to investigate" on page 1) is to be disclosed to the applicant. (c) Pages 2 and 3 of document 2 (excluding the words commencing "He was" in paragraph 2 of page 3 and concluding "the matter" and excluding the section commencing at "FINDINGS" on page 3 and concluding "and 2 together") are to be disclosed to the applicant. (d) Page 8 of document 2 is to be disclosed to the applicant. (e) Document 3 (excluding the words commencing at "However" and concluding with "interview" in paragraph 4, the words commencing at "A legal" and concluding with "findings" in paragraph 5 and the words commencing at "and therefore" and concluding "this date" in paragraph 8) is to be disclosed to the applicant. (3) The decision under review is otherwise affirmed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – public access to government information – Request for information by complainant about a complaint under Part 8A of Police Act 1990 alleging police misconduct – Whether prejudice to the supply of confidential information – Whether prejudice to the effective exercise of an agency's functions – Whether disclosure would reveal a deliberation, consultation, opinion or advice – Whether prejudice an investigation – Whether prejudice the prevention, detection or investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of law – Personal information – balancing public interest considerations Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 (NSW) Police Act 1990 (NSW) Cases Cited: Anderson v University of Sydney [2018] NSWCATAD 196 Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 19 Desmond v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 231 Eyes v Wyong Shire Council [2015] NSWCATAD 214 Head v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2010] NSWADT 27 Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 Jacobs v The Queen [2013] NSWSC 633 Jenkinson v Department of Education and Communities [2013] NSWADT 280 Larsson v Office of Environment and Heritage [2014] NSWCATAD 136 Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 198 Luxford v Department of Education and Communities [2016] NSWCATAD 118 McDonald v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2019] NSWCATAD 66 McKinnon v Blacktown City Council [2012] NSWADT 44 Neary v State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 107 Raven v University of Sydney [2015] NSWCATAD 104 Robinson v Department of Health [2002] NSWADT 222 Searle v Transport for NSW [2018] NSWCATAP 93 Sheehy v Commissioner of Police [2018] NSWCATAD 73 TW v TX [2005] NSWADT 262 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: ECN (Applicant) Commissioner for Police (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: C Winnett (Applicant)