B and Department of Justice (March 2021)
B made an application for assessed disclosure of information to the Department of Justice. In that application, B sought information pertaining to declared conflicts of interest by the Chief Executive Officer of the Integrity Commission. The Department did not hold this information, so transferred the request to the Integrity Commission pursuant to s14. Due to the subject matter of the request for disclosure, the Integrity Commission delegated Ms Amanda Russell, the then Deputy Secretary, Corporate, Strategy and Policy at the Department of Justice to respond to the application. Ms Russell did not provide a decision within the time frame required under the Act, so B sought external review due to the deemed refusal of his application under s45(1)(f). Under s6, the Integrity Commission is an excluded body to which the Act does not apply, except for information related to the administration of that body. The Ombudsman determined that the information B sought did not relate to the administration of the Integrity Commission. Therefore, the Act did not apply to the information and B was not entitled to it.
Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (August 2020)
Mr Carlo Di Falco requested information from Tasmania Police relating to gun crimes. Tasmania Police provided some information, but refused the bulk of the information under s19. Information was also refused as matters were currently before the Court and also because of legal professional privilege.
The Ombudsman upheld Tasmania Police's use of s19 on the basis that the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert the Police Service's resources from its other work. The Ombudsman also found similarly regarding information which could not be produced using the normal computer hardware and software and technical expertise of Tasmania Police. It was refused pursuant to s10.
William Yabsley and Department of Justice (December 2019)
Mr Yabsley asked for a range of information from the Supreme Court of Tasmania. This was in relation to a matter that involved him. The Department refused some of the request on the basis it was already available to Mr Yabsley for a reasonable fee. It also refused the other parts on the basis the Supreme Court is an excluded body under s6. The Ombudsman upheld this decision.