-
O & P and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
O and P requested information from the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) regarding an alleged property theft.
On 27 March 2025, the Department issued its original decision to both applicants. This found relevant information partially exempt under ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. The applicants sought internal review and the Department maintained its findings.
The applicants sought external review and the Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed under ss35 and 36 should be varied. He further determined that it was not necessary to review exemptions claimed under ss30 or 39 beyond indicating that they were not applicable to information to be released.
O & P and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 288.6 KB)
-
R and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 11 February 2025, R made an application for assessed disclosure to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act). The application sought information related to a police family violence order.
The Department’s delegate held that some information sought by R was exempt from disclosure under ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. R sought internal review and the decision was upheld.
R sought external review. The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30(1)(d), 35, 36 and 39 were varied; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s30(1)(e) were affirmed.
R and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 209.5 KB)
-
F and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
F submitted an application for assessed disclosure on 19 August 2024 under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). F sought information regarding allegedly fraudulent banking activities.
The Department did not identify any information responding to two parts of F’s request, however it did identify relevant information relating to the third part. The Department released some of this information, but found that exemptions under ss30, 35, and 36 of the Act, and s18 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Tasmania Act 1999, applied to the remainder. The Department affirmed its decision on internal review.
F sought external review. The Acting Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30(1)(e) and 36 were upheld; and
- information was not exempt under the Telecommunications (Interception) Tasmania Act 1999, but was exempt under s30(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.
F and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 206.3 KB)
-
Jacqui Lambie and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 9 August 2024, Senator Jacqui Lambie made an application to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). She sought information regarding the investigation into the death of Ms Eden Westbrook.
The Department’s decisions held that exemptions pursuant to ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act applied to the information related to Senator Lambie’s request. Senator Lambie sought external review.
The Acting Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s30(1)(b) and (d) were affirmed;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35 and 36 were varied; and
- the Department’s search for information was sufficient.
Jacqui Lambie and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 353.3 KB)
-
Meg Webb and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 16 October 2023, the Honourable Meg Webb MLC made an application to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). She sought information regarding the investigation into the murder of Mr Robert Chappell.
The Department released 608 pages of information in whole or in part and relied on ss30, 31, 35 and 36 to exempt some information.
Ms Webb sought internal review and the Department released a small amount of additional information but largely maintained its position. Ms Webb then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 31, 35 and 36 were varied.
Meg Webb and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 239.1 KB)
-
Meg Webb and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 30 January, 20 February and 14 March 2023, the Hon Meg Webb MLC made applications to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). She sought information regarding evidence used or tested in the murder investigation and trial of Ms Susan Neill-Fraser.
The Department combined the requests and initially refused them pursuant to s19 because they would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the Department from its other work.
Ms Webb sought internal review and the Department reassessed its decision and released some information. It relied on ss30, 31, 35 and 36 to exempt some other information.
Ms Webb then sought external review, questioning the exemptions applied and searching conducted by the Department.
The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 31, 35 and 36 were varied; and
- the Department conducted a sufficient search for information.
Meg Webb and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 252.5 KB)
-
B and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 10 August 2023, B submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) requesting information in relation to his re-entry into Australia in 2022.
The Department’s original decision held that exemptions pursuant to ss34, 35 and 39 of the Act applied to information responsive to B’s application. This original decision was upheld on internal review, with additional exemptions being applied pursuant to s30 of the Act.
B sought external review of these decisions. The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 39 were varied;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss34 and 35 were not made out; and
- exemptions pursuant to s36 were applied.
B and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 238.8 KB)
-
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 26 June 2023, 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). She sought information which related to the investigation into the death of her sister.
The Department found that information was excluded under s6 of the Act as it was in the possession of the Department only by virtue of the role police officers take in assisting the Coroner. There was some other relevant information to O’s request which was claimed to be exempt under ss30 and 36. O sought internal review and the decision was affirmed. O then sought external review.
The Ombudsman concluded that:
- the Department correctly relied upon s6 to exclude the jurisdiction of the Act in relation to the information it holds for the Coroner; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 36 were affirmed.
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 290.5 KB)
-
Christine Wright and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
Ms Christine Wright is an employee of the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). On 19 October 2022 she made an application to the Department for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information about herself contained in briefing notes to the Minister.
The Department relied upon s27 of the Act to exempt a small amount of information on the grounds that it constituted opinions contained in internal briefing information for a Minister. Ms Wright sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 were varied.
Christine Wright and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 97.8 KB)
-
Alison Sandy and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
Ms Alison Sandy is the FOI Editor of Seven Network. On 20 October 2020, Ms Sandy made an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). She sought video and audio recordings and transcripts from 1996 of interactions between Tasmania Police and Martin Bryant.
The Department found the information to be exempt in full, relying on s30 of the Act, information relating to law enforcement. Ms Sandy sought internal review and the Department affirmed its decision. Ms Sandy then sought external review.
The Ombudsman affirmed the Department’s decision and determined that the information was exempt in full pursuant to s30(1)(c) and (d) of the Act.
Alison Sandy and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 186.1 KB)
-
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 2)
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 (No 3)
On 13 August 2020, 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 was records of phone calls made to St Helens Police Station over a particular period. The Department refused the request on the basis that recordings were not available. The decision was affirmed on internal review and O sought external review.
On 1 August 2023, following assisted resolution under ss47(1)(g) and (k) of the Act, the Department provided a better explanation to O about the lack of call records and provided different information in an effort to assist her.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- the information sought by the applicant was not in existence on the day the application was made; and
- the Department did not initially undertake a sufficient search for information responsive to the request but had taken appropriate steps to rectify this by the conclusion of this external review.
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 3) (PDF, 114.9 KB)
-
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
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)
-
L and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
L had been issued with a Police Family Violence Order (PFVO). L lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009, seeking information from the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) in relation to the complaint on which the PFVO was based. The Department released some information to L but considered that some information was exempt under ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act.
Upon application by L for internal review, the Department upheld its earlier decision. L then sought external review. The Ombudsman found that a small amount of the information sought could be released to L but the majority of the information remained exempt.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 30(1)(d) were varied;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30(1)(e) and 35 were affirmed; and
- It was not necessary to assess the alternative exemption claimed under s39.
L and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 372.3 KB)
-
H and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
H made a complaint to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) regarding the handling of an alleged breach of a Family Violence Order in place for her protection. As part of that complaint, H made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department to seek further information about its guidelines or protocols in relation to breaches of Family Violence Orders.
The Department released a decision to H on 21 May 2019, determining that there were two pages of relevant information from the Department’s Family Violence Manual and both were fully exempt pursuant to s30(1)(c). H sought internal review and the Department released a further decision on 11 June 2019. This decision affirmed the original decision and did not release any information. H sought external review of that decision.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to s30(1)(c) were not made out in the majority of instances, but that some parts of the information were exempt under s30(1)(c).
H and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 138.3 KB)
-
D, E and Tasmania Police
D alleges he was sexually assaulted as a child by an older man, E. E was investigated for gross indecency then later charged with indecent practices between males. He was acquitted at trial. D applied to Tasmania Police for assessed disclosure of information regarding the investigation, as he was seeking to make a civil claim against E. A proof of evidence that included E's record of interview was found to be responsive to D's request. Tasmania Police consulted E under s36(2) when considering whether to release the document. E objected to the release, but Tasmania Police decided that the document was not exempt information under s36 and should be provided to D with certain personal information redacted. E sought internal review of the decision and Tasmania Police affirmed its original decision. E sought external review of Tasmania Police's internal review decision to release the information to D.
The Ombudsman considered E's objections and relevant public interest factors. He concluded that the proof of evidence that included E's record of interview should be released to D in the redacted form provided to E in the Tasmania Police internal review decision.
D, E and Tasmania Police (PDF, 179.4 KB)
-
Anna Porretta and the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
Mrs Anna Porretta is involved in the operation of the Ivory Lounge Bar. She made an application in July 2018 for assessed disclosure to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management regarding its representations relating to an application for an out-of-hours permit submitted to the Liquor and Gaming Branch of the Department of Treasury and Finance. In particular, she sought to obtain the names and rankings, in terms of Tasmania Police call outs, of other licensed premises to give context to information included in the representations. The Department released a decision on 2 August 2018 and an internal review decision on 22 September 2018, both determining that all information was exempt pursuant to s30(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act 2009, as it considered that the information would disclose information gathered, collated and created for intelligence purposes. Mrs Porretta then sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that the information amounted to intelligence as defined by the Act and affirmed the Department's decision to exempt the information under s30(1)(e).
Anna Porretta and the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 143.1 KB)
-
Adam Stanway and Tasmania Police
Mr Stanway sought information from Tasmania Police regarding its classification of the Warwick WFA1 bolt action rifle as a prohibited firearm and membership of its Firearms Categorisation Assessment Committee [FCAC]. Tasmania Police released some information regarding the decision to classify the WFA1 as a prohibited firearm, but claimed other information exempt under s35 or s36. Tasmania Police released information regarding most FCAC members, but not one who it had engaged from another jurisdiction. Tasmania Police decided that member's information was exempt under s34 and/or s36.
During the Ombudsman's external review, Tasmania Police agreed to the release of that member's name and biographic information, after his consent. The Ombudsman therefore determined that information was not exempt under s34 or s36. That had been Mr Stanway's main concern.
Mr Stanway agreed he did not require personal information of FCAC members contained in emails between them, beyond that already released to him by Tasmania Police or by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Due to that and s12(3)(c)(i), the Ombudsman was able to finalise the application on the basis of its scope and without determining the exemptions claimed by Tasmania Police pursuant to s35.
Adam Stanway and Tasmania Police (PDF, 243.7 KB)
-
X, Y and Tasmania Police
X alleges he was sexually abused as a child by an older man, Y. Y was charged with indecent assault (of a child) but this was discontinued. X applied to Tasmania Police for assessed disclosure of information relating to the indecent assault investigation and prosecution, as he was seeking to make a civil claim against Y. Tasmania Police consulted Y under s36(2) when considering whether to release a transcript of his record of interview and associated signed notes in relation to the matter. Y objected to the release, but Tasmania Police decided that the documents were not exempt information under s36 and should be provided to X with the personal information of Y and other alleged victims redacted. Y sought internal review of the decision and Tasmania Police affirmed its original decision. Y sought external review of Tasmania Police's internal review decision to release the information to X.
The Ombudsman considered Y’s objections and relevant public interest factors. He concluded that Y’s record of interview and associated signed notes should be released to X in the redacted form provided to Y with the Tasmania Police internal review decision. This would not be contrary to the public interest.
X, Y and Tasmania Police (PDF, 175.8 KB)
-
Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police
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)
-
Jeff Thompson and Tasmania Police
Mr Thompson sought a broad range of information held by Tasmania Police as a result of several charges laid against him. Tasmania Police refused the information on the basis it would be a substantial and unreasonable diversion of its resources. On review the Ombudsman found Tasmania Police grossly underestimated the volume of information held and its decision to refuse was affirmed.
Jeff Thompson and Tasmania Police (PDF, 612.0 KB)
-
T and Tasmania Police
T sought information in relation to her complaint to police about an alleged abuser. Tasmania Police processed the request and found most of the information to be exempt. This was mainly on the basis it involved information relating to the enforcement of the law, information subject to legal professional privilege, internal information, or personal information of other people. The Ombudsman considered the decision of Tasmania Police and, while mostly upholding it, held that some further information should be released to T.
T and Tasmania Police (PDF, 3.0 MB)
-
Dr George Lane and Tasmania Police
Dr George Lane is a scientist who had been undertaking some consultancy work for which he ordered equipment from China. Tasmania Police was alerted to a parcel potentially containing glassware consistent with drug manufacture. A search warrant was issued and Dr Lane's property was searched. He sought information from the Police Service relating to the incident. Tasmania Police exempted much of the material as it related to the enforcement of the law, or for other reasons such as internal deliberative and personal information. While most of the information remained exempt, the Ombudsman made some variations to the Police Service’s decision.
Dr George Lane and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.9 MB)
-
Damon Smith and Tasmania Police
Mr Smith sought information from Tasmania Police in relation to a complaint he had made. Specifically, he sought a copy of the investigation notes and details that resulted from his complaint.
Tasmania Police exempted some information and released other pieces directly to the applicant. There was some negotiation with Police during this review that resulted in Tasmania Police voluntarily releasing extra information. As a result there were very few pieces of information the Ombudsman determined should additionally be released to the applicant.
Damon Smith and Tasmania Police (PDF, 888.3 KB)
-
Michael Atkin and Tasmania Police
Mr Atkin, an ABC journalist, submitted a request to Tasmania Police seeking information in relation to the gun trafficking trade in Tasmania in February 2015. Nearly 300 pages of information were claimed exempt under a range of different sections given the sensitivity of the information. The application of the various sections was largely supported by this office with a few minor changes to Tasmania Police’s decision.
Michael Atkin and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.1 MB)
-
A and Tasmania Police
The information at issue was whether the will of the applicant’s late parent should be disclosed to them. This decision discusses the requirements of s36 (personal information of a person) of the Right to Information Act 2009 and the intersection it has with the Wills Act 2008. As these Acts appear at face value to contradict each other, the issue of implied repeal by later statute is also considered.
A and Tasmania Police (PDF, 97.5 KB)