Selby v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 61

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Selby v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 61 Hearing dates: 22 November 2012 Decision date: 18 March 2013 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: Naida Isenberg, Judicial member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed Catchwords: Government rewards - partial disclosure of information sought - confidentiality of informers/rewardees Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Freedom of Information Act 1989 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Cases Cited: Nature Conservation Council of NSW v Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services[2012] NSWADT 195 Commissioner of Police v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Hugh Selby (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: H Selby (Applicant in person) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 123171

reasons for decision

BACKGROUND 1Hugh Selby, the applicant, requested the respondent to provide access to information, pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ('GIPA Act'), as follows: RE: Information about any payment made to a person pursuant to a claim for a 'reward leading to information about or the conviction of any person for the murder of the late John Newman MLA'. A late 2011 newspaper report claimed that a reward had been paid to an unidentified person with respect to the 1994 murder of the late John Newman MLA. I would like to know: - If a reward was paid to any one or more persons in the investigation of this murder and subsequent successful prosecution of Phuong Ngo; - If so, when was such reward or rewards paid; - In what amount or amounts; - Who was/were the recipients of such payment/s; and - The nature of the information provided to justify the payment/s. 2The respondent refused access to the information sought, on the basis that there was an overriding public interest against the disclosure of the information. The applicant seeks review of that decision. 3After the application for review was filed, on 23 January 2012 the respondent released some information in relation to "NSW Government Reward Payments from 2006 to 2011 and currently recommended reward payments". The information released at that time included information relating to a reward paid in connection with murder of Mr Newman - that the total reward payment was $250,000 and that it was paid in June 2010.To some extent some of the respondent's submissions were overtaken by this prior disclosure. 4The applicant observed that a press report of 20 August 2012 was issued about a reward paid in connection with Newman murder, which he interpreted as indicating that the reward was paid to one person. The respondent noted that it had not supplied the name of any person(s) paid the reward, the number of rewards that were paid; or the type or nature of the information provided by a reward claimant that justified the payment of a reward. 5If information in a record has already been disclosed, it cannot then be "revealed", as defined in cl.1 of Schedule 4 GIPA Act, by giving access under the GIPA Act: Nature Conservation Council of NSW v Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services [2012] NSWADT 195 at [174]. 6The parties agreed that, as the information referred to above had been released, the outstanding information from the applicant's request was as to the recipients of such payment(s) and the nature of the information provided to justify the payment(s). 7At the hearing the applicant also sought information as to when an application was made for payment and who had recommended the payment. The respondent correctly, in my view, observed that this information had not been the subject of the request, the response to which is the subject of this review. 8It is helpful to recall that the definitions of 'government information', 'personal information', and 'reveal' in the GIPA Act operate with respect to information alone, not, as was the case under the Freedom of Information Act 1989, with respect to documents. Further, the issue for consideration is not whether the document has been publicly disclosed, but whether the information contained therein has been publicly disclosed: see Richards v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services [2011] NSWADT 98. 9Documents containing the information in relation to the identity of the recipient(s) of the reward and the nature of the information provided were not provided to the Tribunal, but, in the end result, the production of the documents was not necessary for me to reach my decision.