Rivero v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 115

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Rivero v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 115 Hearing dates: 9 March 2019 Date of orders: 12 June 2019 Decision date: 12 June 2019 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Government Information – audit report - personal information – access to information about an individual by the individual - whether prejudice to an agency's functions Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Cases Cited: Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19 Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Barrett (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAP 86 Denyer v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 160 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179 (1979) 46 FLR 409 RT v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2005] NSWADT 270 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Shannon Rivero (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: S Rivero (Applicant in person)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 201800249425 Publication restriction: Nil

Reasons for Decision

Introduction 1. Mr Shannon Rivero ("the Applicant") has applied to the Tribunal for review of a decision by the Respondent in response to an application for access to information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ("the GIPA Act"). 2. In his access application the Applicant requested: All complete written/ and or electronic information from the NSW firearms registry and NSW Police from 1-01-2006 - 16-01-2018 Information to include COPS, CAD, Email Correspondence, Computer Records, Notebook Entries 1. The reference to COPS is a reference to the Respondent's Computerised Operational Policing System ("COPS"). After an initial deemed refusal, the Respondent ultimately provided a supplementary determination and a further supplementary determination. It determined to: 1. to refuse access to certain information; and 2. to refuse to confirm or deny that the it holds certain information. 1. The Respondent found that there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of the information to which access has been refused, and that there is an overriding public interest against disclosing information which confirms or denies that the Respondent holds certain other information. 2. The Applicant initially challenged the sufficiency of the searches that the Respondent had undertaken and sought access to the withheld information. He asserted that he is aware that the Respondent holds other unidentified information because it relates to him and he signed it. 3. In his written submissions the Applicant identified the outstanding issues as follows: "1. The Commissioner says he can neither confirm or deny information on me as an informant as it could infringe on the safety of who was involved. As I was the only person involved in this matter and I am the one requesting the information I do not believe this decision was applicable to me. 2. The Notebook Journals for Sgt Brett Ryan are missing. This information in these Journals I would expect to be classed as official documents as people of the general public are made to sign when dealing with police. Therefore I would expect that these journals would be catalogued for a period of time greater than 10 years as they may need to be called into question like in this instance. 3. The Notebook Journals for my 2010 safe storage inspection have no relevant details. When information provided to me about my safe storage inspection in 2010 say partial or incomplete I would expect that notebook journals would tell a fuller story than what has been written on the COPS system as these details would be written in the notebook fresh on the day. 4. The Commissioner refused me in full for a copy of the audit report on who views my information under the COPS system. The Commissioner stated that he refused this in full for reasons that this may prejudice ongoing investigations. As it has been stated that there is no ongoing investigation I believe this explanation was generic and has no bearing on his decision. As I email an example of the information I was wishing to obtain I have proven that the commissioner has in the past released this information and there for has set a precedent. 1. Shortly before the hearing, the Respondent undertook additional searches for information falling within the scope of the access application. Further information was located and released to the Applicant through the further supplementary determination. The issues for consideration have been narrowed as a result of this determination. 2. At the hearing the Applicant confirmed that he was only pressing item 4 of the outstanding issues that the Applicant identified i.e. the audit report. 3. The Respondent submits that its decision in regard to the audit report should be affirmed as the correct and preferable decision.