O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 2) (August 2023)
On 10 November 2019, O made an application for assessed disclosure, under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department), for information related to the death of her sister. On 22 November 2019, the Department refused O’s request on the basis the information was otherwise available (s12) or a repeat application (s20(a)). O sought internal review and the Department affirmed its decision on 3 December 2019. O then sought external review.
The Ombudsman has already considered the correct application of s6 in a previous decision relating to the same parties in O and the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management No 1 (June 2023) and found that it had been incorrectly applied in the past.
The Ombudsman determined that the Department:
- was not entitled to rely on s20(a) to refuse the application as a repeat, but was not required to reassess the relevant information as it is excluded under s6 of the Act;
- did not undertake a sufficient search for information responsive to O’s request, but has now taken appropriate steps to rectify this issue; and
- was entitled to refuse to provide information in relation to the remainder of O’s request, as this was otherwise available under s12(3)(c)(i) or did not exist.
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 2)
(PDF, 258.4 KB)
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (June 2023)
On 15 August 2019, O made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). The information sought by O related to the investigation into the death of her sister, P.
On 16 August 2019, the Department released some further information but claimed the information could not be provided due to s6, as it related to coronial proceedings and the coroner is an excluded person.
The request was also refused in part under s20(a), as the Department claimed it was a repeat application for the same or similar information as had been previously requested. This was affirmed on the internal review on 5 September 2019.
The Ombudsman found that the Department:
- has previously misapplied s6 but was entitled to rely on it where information was in possession of a police officer assisting the coroner; and
- was not entitled to refuse O’s application as a repeat under s20(a).
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 198.1 KB)
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.
B and Department of Justice (March 2021) (PDF, 85.0 KB)
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.
Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.2 MB)
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.