RTI Decisions search

Your search for Section 34 returned 3 results.

• 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)
  Apr 2025 Sections 30 34 35 36 39 Section 30 Section 34 Section 35 Section 36 Section 39 Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management

• 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)
  May 2021 Sections 34 35 36 Section 34 Section 35 Section 36 Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management

• 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)
  Apr 2020 Sections 30 34 35 36 Section 30 Section 34 Section 35 Section 36 Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management