Matthew v NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 225

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Matthew v NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 225 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 14 October 2013 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: S Montgomery, Judicial Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed. Catchwords: Access to government information - access application - reasonable searches Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Freedom Of Information Act 1989 Cases Cited: Camilleri v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 5 Chu v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2005] FCA 1730 Cianfrano v Director General Department of Commerce and Anor (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 46 FLR 409 Miriani v Commissioner of NSW Police [2005] NSWADT 187 Patsalis v Commissioner of Police. New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 213 Saggers v Environment Protection Authority [2013] NSWADT 204 Shepherd and Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning (1994) 1 QAR 464 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Margaret Matthew (Applicant) NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Boyce Law (Applicant) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 123371

reasons for decision 1GENERAL DIVISION (S MONTGOMERY, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)): The Applicant made an application ("the Access Application") under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ("the GIPA Act") for access to government information that she believed to be held by the Respondent. 2The Access Application requested the following: 1. All documents, including any with allegations in relation to me and the name of the informant, held in any section or Department of the NSW Police. 2. Specific information as to why I, having submitted a written application, was not accepted into the role of Volunteer in Policing. 3The Respondent's Notice of Decision in relation to the Access Application stated that the Part 1 of the Access Application had been interpreted as a request for any events recorded on the Respondent's Computerised Operation & Policing System ("COPS") involving the Applicant and a criminal record check. The COPS system records all reports investigated by police from 1994. 4The Respondent's Notice of Decision concluded that a criminal record check in relation to Applicant identified no records that fall within the ambit of that part of the request; a search of COPS events in relation to the Applicant identified no records that fall within the ambit of that part of the request; and no records were identified that fall within the ambit of Point 2 of the Access Application. However, the search did locate a Crime Information Report dated 17 February 1978 ("the Report"). 5The Respondent determined to release a redacted copy of the Report. Personal information relating to individuals other than the Applicant was withheld on the basis that disclosing any of the third party personal information would be unreasonable. 6The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal for external review of the Respondent's determination that it does not hold any other information relating to the Applicant that falls within the ambit of the Access Application. She believes that the Respondent may hold further information that falls within the ambit of the Access Application. 7The Respondent made further inquiries in relation to the existence of any other documents that might satisfy the Applicant's request but found no documents other than the Report.