-
M and Department of Justice
On 2 December 2024, the primary applicant in this matter submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department). This application sought access to all information relating to complaints, concerns and disputes involving M and associated corporations.
Pursuant to s37(2) of the Act, the Department consulted M to obtain their view as to whether the information should be released. Despite M’s objections, the Department decided that the information should be released. M subsequently sought external review of the Department’s decision, arguing that all information proposed to be released was exempt under ss30, 36 and 37.
The Ombudsman determined that the relevant information was not exempt, affirming the Department’s decision.
M and Department of Justice (PDF, 251.9 KB)
-
D and Department of Justice
D is a victim-survivor who made a submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings.
On 11 September 2024, D contacted the Department of Justice (the Department) seeking other information provided to the Commission of Inquiry regarding their abuser.
The Department released some information but claimed another statement was exempt under ss36 and 39 of the Act. D sought internal review and the Department largely maintained its position. D then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were affirmed.
D and Department of Justice (PDF, 243.0 KB)
-
Linda Poulton and Department of Justice
On 15 June 2020 Westbury resident Ms Linda Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department), requesting 10 items of information related to a proposed prison development at Westbury.
The Department’s original decision relevantly held that ss35 and 39 of the Act applied to exempt some information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application from disclosure. This original decision was upheld on internal review.
Ms Poulton sought external review of this decision by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions pursuant to s36 were applicable; and
- exemptions pursuant to ss35 and 39 should be varied.
Linda Poulton and Department of Justice (PDF, 203.2 KB)
-
Linda Poulton and Department of Justice
On 23 June 2020, Westbury resident Ms Linda Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department) requesting information related to a proposed prison development at Westbury.
On 12 October 2020, Ms Poulton received a decision on her application for assessed disclosure and some information was released to her. Some other information was deemed to be partially exempt from disclosure pursuant to s39(1)(a) of the Act, as information provided in confidence. Some aspects of Ms Poulton’s application were also transferred to the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment in accordance with s14 of the Act. This decision was upheld on internal review.
Ms Poulton sought the external review of this decision by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman determined that, while the Department did not claim information to be exempt under those provisions, exemptions pursuant to ss35 and 36 were applicable. He further determined that exemptions pursuant to s39 should be varied.
Linda Poulton and Department of Justice (PDF, 221.9 KB)
-
Manuel Sessink and Department of Justice
On 13 October 2019, Mr Manuel Sessink made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department) seeking information relating to the siting of the proposed northern prison. On 20 November 2019, Mr Sessink sought external review under s45(1)(f) of the Act because the timeframe for a decision to be provided by the Department had elapsed and he was not in receipt of that decision.
On 21 November 2019, the Department issued a decision to Mr Sessink. It decided to release the requested information, in part, exempting the remainder from disclosure under ss35, 37, and 39 of the Act. Mr Sessink extended his external review request to a full review without seeking internal review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37, and 39 should be varied.
Manuel Sessink and Department of Justice (PDF, 280.3 KB)
-
Tim Bullard and Department of Justice
On 16 December 2021, an incident occurred at the Hillcrest Primary School in Northern Tasmania in which a jumping castle and inflatable ‘Zorb’ balls became airborne in high winds, resulting in the deaths of six children and injuries to a further three. The Hillcrest Primary School is operated by the Department for Education, Children and Young People, known at the time of the incident as the Department of Education (the Department).
Mr Tim Bullard is the Secretary of the Department and made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice on 19 May 2022. He sought information regarding the ongoing WorkSafe investigation into the incident pursuant to the Work Health and Safety Act 2012. On 28 July 2022, a decision was released by the Department of Justice which determined that the majority of the information sought was exempt from release under s30 of the Act due to risk of prejudice to the ongoing investigation. Mr Bullard sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that the Department of Justice’s claim for exemption of the relevant information pursuant to s30 was valid and upheld the decision.
Tim Bullard and Department of Justice (PDF, 160.1 KB)
-
Patrick Billings and Department of Justice
Patrick Billings, a journalist with the Mercury newspaper, sought information from the Department of Justice regarding prisoners who had been incorrectly released. The Department located information relating to seven prisoners and released the gender and age of each prisoner, the date of early or late release, the correct earliest release date, the date each prisoner was returned to custody and the Tasmania Prison Service’s assessment of how the errors were made. Offence information relating to the prisoners was claimed to be exempt pursuant to s36 of the Right to Information Act 2009.
Mr Billings sought external review and the Ombudsman determined that offence information relating to prisoners about whom a decision or comments on passing sentence had been published is exempt under s36. Offence information relating to prisoners about whom there were no decision or comments on passing sentence published was not exempt as it did not render the identity of the prisoners reasonably ascertainable and was to be released to Mr Billings.
The Ombudsman reconsidered his decision due to the accidental omission of the opportunity for the Department to provide input on an adverse decision, but did not alter his original determinations following the reconsideration.
Patrick Billings and Department of Justice (PDF, 136.2 KB)
-
Damien Matcham, on behalf of Nigel Matcham, and Department of Justice
Mr Nigel Matcham suffered a serious head injury while working at the chocolate factory at Cadbury Road in Claremont. His brother, Mr Damien Matcham, applied on behalf of Nigel to WorkSafe Tasmania (part of the Department of Justice) for documentation it held regarding Nigel. The Department released emails, letters, medical certificates, a workplace attendance record and, on internal review, medical reports. However, it decided four statements, each signed by another person working at the factory that night then provided to WorkSafe by the employer, Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd, were exempt in full under s36.
The Ombudsman's office consulted each author of a statement (which the Department had not done). One author opposed release of their statement. The Ombudsman considered the meaning of 'personal information' as defined in s5(1). He found that each statement contained some personal information, but parts of the statements were clearly not personal information. The Ombudsman considered the public interest test under s33 and Schedule 1 of the Act. He found only matter (m) in Schedule 1 weighed, in part, against release of one statement, given its author's objection. By contrast, a number of matters weighed in favour of disclosure (including, in part, matter (m)), given the significant interests of Nigel Matcham in obtaining the statements regarding the circumstances of his injury. The Ombudsman determined the public interest test required disclosure of all four statements in full, so reversed the Department's decision regarding the statements.
The Department made no submission on the preliminary/draft decision under s48(1)(a). It noted that the 'matter dates back to 2017 and the Department now, as a general rule, releases such witness statement [sic] as a matter of course for the reasons outlined in the decision.'
Damien Matcham, on behalf of Nigel Matcham, and Department of Justice (PDF, 262.1 KB)
-
B and Department of Justice
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 (PDF, 85.0 KB)
-
William Yabsley and Department of Justice
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.
William Yabsley and Department of Justice (PDF, 1.2 MB)