APD v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 42

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: APD v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 42 Decision date: 15 March 2012 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: S Higgins, Deputy President Decision: The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed Catchwords: Access to government information - public interest considerations against disclosure - whether information could reasonably be expected to reveal an individual's personal information Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Category: Principal judgment Parties: APD (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: APD (Applicant in person) State Crown Solicitor (Respondent) Information Commissioner File Number(s): 113042

REasons for decision

Introduction 1GENERAL DIVISION: (S HIGGINS, DEPUTY PRESIDENT). The applicant, APD, seeks review of a decision of the respondent, the Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner), to refuse him access to the particulars of an adult bike rider (the cyclist) who he alleges assaulted him on the morning of 26 May 2010. APD made his request under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act). 2The Commissioner identified three documents containing the information requested by APD. These documents were a COPS event report, a witness statement of the cyclist and a witness statement of APD. The Commissioner determined to release, in full, the statement of APD. The Commissioner also released, in part, the COPS report and refused to release the witness statement of the cyclist. The Commissioner determined that the disclosure of the information in the witness statement of the cyclist could reasonably be expected to reveal that person's personal information and that when this public interest consideration against disclosure was balanced against the public interest consideration for disclosure the public interest against the disclosure was an overriding one. 3The Commissioner made a similar finding in regard to the deletions in the COPS event report. These deletions being the particulars of the cyclist and the information at the end of the report. The grounds relied on in regard to the deletion at the end of the report differed to those relating to the particulars of the cyclist. As APD did not press access to this deletion I have not considered it any further. 4APD sought review of the decision of the Commissioner by the Office of the Information Commissioner, which he was entitled to do: see section 89 of the GIPA Act. On review, the Information Commissioner found, on balance, the Commissioner's decision to refuse access to the requested information be upheld on the grounds relied upon by the Commissioner. 5In his application for review, APD gave the following as his reason for seeking review of the decision of the respondent: 'I am seeking particulars of the adult bike rider that assaulted me on 26 May, 2010. I was significantly injured. I was forced to take time off work for an accumulated period exceeding five (5) months to recover from my injuries and surgery. I intend to issue a statement of claim seeking damages from the adult bike rider. I have a witness. I have a viable case to bring the matter before a civil court.' 6By consent, the parties agreed that the matter should be dealt with on the papers pursuant to section 76 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.