1. Under s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I set aside the internal review decision of the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) of 6 January 2021.
2. I substitute my decision that:
   • the Department has not taken all reasonable steps to locate documents relevant to the applicant's expanded request (as referred to below) and further relevant documents within the scope of the request can be found or do exist (s 24A)
   • the scope of this IC review includes the material produced by the Department to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) in response to the OAIC's direction of 5 November 2024[1]
   • the material claimed to be irrelevant under s 22(1)(a)(ii) in Document 1[2] is relevant to the request
   • the material claimed to be irrelevant under s 22(1)(a)(ii) in Documents 1(a)[3], 2 and 4[4] is irrelevant to the request
   • the personal information of the applicant is not conditionally exempt under s 47F
   • the personal information of third-parties is conditionally exempt under s 47F and release would be contrary to the public interest at this time.
3. Within 30[5] days of this decision:
   • the Department must take all reasonable steps to process the applicant's expanded request in accordance with the findings below in this matter and notify the applicant of its decision
   • the Department must provide the applicant with a copy of the documents, edited under s 22 only to the extent necessary to delete material I have found to be exempt or irrelevant, and
   • the Department must advise whether it has fully implemented my decision or whether it will be seeking review of the decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal.

1. This decision discusses the application of ss 22, 24A and 47F to documents relating to the applicant's visa application and to information concerning their spouse's marital status (past and present). The decision is primarily of interest to the parties.
2. However, there are three findings of broader interest. Firstly, the finding that the parties have consented, through their actions, to the expansion of the scope of the applicant's request during the internal review. Secondly, that third-party family members' personal information is exempt under s 47F even though the documents were provided by the applicant's migration agent to the Department. Thirdly, reforms to the FOI Act in 2010[6] removed earlier provisions[7] that enabled agencies to refuse to grant access to documents without identifying them where it was apparent from the request that all of the documents would be exempt documents. Accordingly, even though the documents held by the Department may well be exempt documents, it must nevertheless search for and identify those documents.[8]

1. On 31 October 2020, the applicant sought access to their visa application including their spouse's name and the relationship between the parties (see Annexure A).
2. The background to this matter is set out at Annexure B.
3. The Department initially identified six documents in scope of the applicant's request and decided to:
   • release one document in full (excluding material deleted as irrelevant under s 22(1)(a)(ii))
   • refuse access to two documents in full under s 47F
   • release three documents in part with exempt material deleted under s 47F and irrelevant material deleted under s 22(1)(a)(ii).[9]

1. In their request for Information Commissioner review (IC review), the applicant explained that they were seeking their complete visa application and information regarding their spouse's current marital status.
2. During this IC review the OAIC issued a direction to the Department to provide a complete copy of the applicant's visa application, including all attachments and supporting evidence to the application.
3. The Department complied with the OAIC's direction and provided an additional 412 pages of documents to the OAIC and submitted that some material was exempt under s 47F. I consider that the original six documents identified by the Department, along with these additional 412 pages of documents (Document 7)[10], are all within scope of the applicant's FOI request and this IC review.
4. In relation to the applicant's request for documents relating to their spouse's marital status, having reviewed the applicant's original FOI request I am satisfied that such documents were not in scope of that request, except to the extent such material was contained in the applicant's visa application.
5. However, in its internal review decision the Department effectively expanded the scope of the request by including documents relating to the applicant's spouse's marital status and any relevant history. As set out at Annexure B, the Department conducted additional searches and identified a further five documents within scope of the request, with some material claimed to be exempt under s 47F.[11]
6. In submissions to this IC review the applicant confirmed they were seeking documents relating to their spouse's marital status and any relevant history of changes to that status. I have interpreted these submissions as the applicant being dissatisfied with the searches conducted by the Department for documents of this nature. As I am reviewing the Department's internal review decision, I consider that searches relevant to the expanded scope of the request are an issue in this IC review.
7. The issues to be decided in this IC review are whether:
   • the material that the Department found to be irrelevant under s 22(1)(a)(ii) is irrelevant
   • the Department has taken all reasonable steps to identify documents within the expanded scope of the request and that documents cannot be found or do not exist, and
   • whether the material the Department maintains is conditionally exempt under s 47F is conditionally exempt under that provision, and if so, whether giving the applicant access to the material at this time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest (s 11A(5)).
8. In an IC review of an access refusal decision, the agency bears the onus of establishing that its decision is justified or that I should give a decision adverse to the applicant.[12]
9. In making my decision, I have had regard to the following:
   • the Department's decision and reasons for decision of 30 November 2020 and its internal review decision and reasons for decision of 6 January 2021
   • the evidence of searches undertaken by the Department
   • the documents at issue
   • the FOI Act[13]
   • the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the FOI Act[14] to which agencies must have regard in performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI Act,[15] and
   • the parties' submissions.

1. The Department deleted material under s 22(1)(a)(ii) in the document released to the applicant pursuant to its original decision (Document 1(a))[16] and in Documents 1, 2 and 4 of the documents released to the applicant pursuant to its internal review decision.
2. Having considered the expanded scope of the applicant's request, I am satisfied that the material deleted under s 22(1)(a)(ii) in Documents 1(a), 2 and 4 is irrelevant to the request. This is because the only information that the applicant was seeking in documents outside of their complete visa application was information about their spouse's marital status.
3. It is clear from the released parts of Document 1 that it is an extract from the applicant's visa application referenced in their request. Accordingly, I consider that this material is relevant to the request. As referred to above, the OAIC has now received a copy of the complete visa application (Document 7) for the applicant, which includes a copy of Document 1 which is marked for release to the applicant.[17]

1. Having considered the scope of the request, I am satisfied that the material claimed to be irrelevant under s 22(1)(a)(ii):
   • in Document 1 is relevant to the request, and
   • in Documents 1(a), 2 and 4 is irrelevant to the request.

Whether reasonable steps taken to find documents (s 24A)

1. Section 24A requires that an agency take 'all reasonable steps' to find a requested document before refusing access to it on the basis that a document cannot be found or does not exist.
2. As referred to above, searches are an issue in this IC review in relation to the material the applicant seeks relating to their spouse's marital status.
3. In submissions to this IC review the Department acknowledged that it holds additional information regarding the relationship information provided by the applicant's spouse as part of their Integrated Client Services record, however its view is that this material would also be exempt from disclosure under s 47F.
4. Reforms to the FOI Act in 2010[18] removed earlier provisions[19] that enabled agencies to refuse to grant access to documents without identifying them where it was apparent from the request that all of the documents would be exempt documents. Accordingly, even though the documents held by the Department may well be exempt documents, it must nevertheless search for and identify those documents.[20]
5. Given the Department has acknowledged that it holds additional relevant information, I am satisfied that further documents do exist.

1. I find that the Department has not taken all reasonable steps to locate documents relevant to the applicant's request. I am not satisfied that further documents cannot be found or do not exist.

1. This provision applies where the document contains 'personal information'; disclosure in response to the applicant's FOI request would be 'unreasonable' (s 47F(1)); and it would be 'contrary to the public interest' to release the material at the time of the decision (s 11A(5)).

Whether the documents contain personal information

1. The Department submitted that the material claimed to be exempt in the documents at issue consists of the personal information of the applicant's spouse and their parents - including information about the relationship status of the applicant's spouse, bank accounts and term deposits, passports and other identification documents, tax documents and telephone accounts.
2. I have set out the main requirements of this conditional exemption in Annexure C. Broadly, they are that a document contains 'personal information'; disclosure in response to the applicant's FOI request would be 'unreasonable' (s 47F(1)); and it would be 'contrary to the public interest' to release the material at the time of the decision (s 11A(5)).

1. 'Personal information' under the FOI Act has the same meaning as in the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). That definition is set out in Annexure C.
2. I find that information about the applicant's spouse and their parents contained in the documents referred to at paragraph [29], is 'personal information' for the purposes of s 47F(1) as it is information about individuals who are identified or are reasonably identifiable.
3. In addition, my review of the documents at issue revealed that the Department had claimed some material relating to the personal information of the applicant to be exempt.[21]

Would disclosure involve an unreasonable disclosure of personal information?

1. In summary, the Department submitted:
   • the material in question was collected by the Department pursuant to the Migration Act 1985 for the purposes of assessing a visa application
   • the information is not well known and would only be known to a limited group of people with a business need to know
   • the individuals concerned are not generally known to be associated with the matters discussed in the documents
   • the information is not available from publicly accessible sources
   • the information identified as exempt is not the personal information of the applicant
   • the applicant has advised that they are currently estranged from their spouse, given this the Department considers that the third-parties are unlikely to consent to the provision of their personal information and would view any disclosure as a breach of their privacy
   • the material was provided to the Department by the applicant's migration agent for the express purpose of deciding the applicant's visa application. Under the Australian Privacy Principles if the Department holds personal information about an individual that was collected for a particular purpose, it must not disclose the information for another purpose.
2. In summary, the applicant submitted:
   • they are seeking the documents for Family Court proceedings overseas
   • their spouse filed a false declaration overseas that they had never been married
   • the purpose of them seeking the documents requested is to verify the relationship between them and their spouse
   • they requested their spouse's consent for the documents they are seeking to be released to them however their spouse did not agree.
3. I have examined the unedited documents, and have considered the submissions against the mandatory factors in s 47F(2) and other relevant factors.
4. In relation to any personal information of the applicant, I consider that the Department inadvertently claimed some of this material to be exempt in the documents at issue[22]. Accordingly, I consider that it would not be unreasonable to release to the applicant any personal information relating solely to them.
5. I turn now to consideration of the remaining material in the documents at issue claimed to be exempt, being the personal information of third-parties. Having reviewed the evidence before me, I consider the following factors weigh in favour of disclosure:
   • Document 7 was provided to the Department by the applicant's migration agent
   • the documents contain the personal information of the applicant's family members, and
   • the applicant continues to seek access to the documents, accordingly the information is still relevant.
6. In my view, having regard to the content and context of the documents at issue, the following factors weigh against disclosure of the documents in this case:
   • the information is not well known or publicly available
   • the release of the information would not promote the public interest in government transparency and integrity
   • the purpose for which the applicant is seeking the documents is not a consideration[23]
   • the applicant has provided evidence that their spouse has objected in the past to the disclosure of their personal information, given this evidence it is reasonable for me to assume that they and their parents would continue to object to the disclosure of their personal information
   • Document 7 was provided to the Department for the specific purpose of determining the applicant's visa application.
7. Having weighed the relevant factors, I consider that, on balance, disclosure of the material at issue (excluding the applicant's personal information) would involve an unreasonable disclosure of personal information because the factors against disclosure outweigh those in favour of disclosure.

1. I am satisfied that the applicant's personal information is not conditionally exempt under s 47F.
2. I am satisfied that the personal information of third-parties is conditionally exempt under s 47F.[24].

Whether access would be contrary to the public interest (s 11A(5))

1. Having found the material at issue (excluding the applicant's personal information) to be conditionally exempt under s 47F, I am required to consider whether it would be contrary to the public interest to give the applicant access to conditionally exempt material at this time.
2. I have considered the relevant mandatory factors listed in s 11B(3) of the FOI Act. I have not considered the irrelevant factors as set out in s 11B(4) of the FOI Act.[25]
3. In summary, the Department submitted:
   • it considers that disclosure of an individual's personal information collected by the Government for administrative purposes does not advance the public interest in government transparency and integrity
   • the requested information, being the personal information of individual parties, is of personal interest to the applicant and a small number of other people connected to the matter, rather than a matter that is of general public interest. There also appears to be no matter of public debate surrounding the information
   • no insights into public expenditure will be provided through examination of the conditionally exempt material, and
   • the release of the documents in the redacted form allow the applicant to access their own personal information.
4. The applicant did not provide specific submissions in relation to the public interest, however they submitted that any change in their spouse's relationship status needs to be notified to the relevant government body in Australia.
5. Determining whether the disclosure of conditionally exempt material is contrary to the public interest requires balancing the public interest (and value) in the information being disclosed and any identifiable harm that could reasonably be expected to follow from the disclosure.
6. Above I found that disclosure of the personal information of third-parties would be unreasonable in the circumstances. In my view this factor weighs against disclosure.
7. While release of the conditionally exempt material would promote the objects of the FOI Act generally, in my view, taking into account the nature and context of the particular material and the submissions, this public interest consideration does not carry much weight in these circumstances in relation to the 47F material (for the reasons outlined above at [38] - [40]).
8. On balance, I consider the factors against disclosure outweigh the factors favouring disclosure, which I have given minimal weight.

1. For the above reasons, I consider the relevant material is conditionally exempt under s 47F, and it would be contrary to the public interest to release it.

When I received the document, it did not contain the name of my [spouse] as it was a spouse visa application instead it shows only the first applicant is my spouse. I have clearly mentioned that I need a proper copy of my visa application that includes my spouse name and relation between us. Here I am again making a request to share the document with requested information with the name of my spouse mentioned on it. I have attached supported documents that will help to find my application faster. Also, when you treat this request as a new file please share the acknowledgement number for the same.

Visa category: student (subsequent entrant)(subclass 500)

The applicant made a request for access to documents to the Department (see Annexure A).

The Department made its decision and released one document in part with material claimed to be exempt under s 47F and irrelevant material deleted under s 22(1)(a)(ii).

The applicant requested an internal review of the Department's decision.

In response to further questions from the Department, the applicant advised they were seeking access to documents relating to:

• a history of their spouse's marital status that had been declared to Immigration by their spouse (including any supporting documents they provided)
• their visa application, and
• their spouse's current marital status.

The Department made its internal review decision and decided to set aside its original decision.

The Department advised the applicant that it had undertaken additional searches for documents within the scope of the request.

The Department released five further documents. It deleted some material in those documents as irrelevant under s 22(1)(a)(ii) and claimed some material as exempt under s 47F. It also maintained its exemption claims over the document released pursuant to its original decision.

Relevant provisions of the FOI Act, FOI Guidelines, and decisions

Section 11A(5) of the FOI Act states the agency or Minister must give the person access to the document if it is conditionally exempt at a particular time unless (in the circumstances) access to the document at that time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

Section 22 of the FOI Act authorises an agency to prepare and to give an applicant access to an edited copy of a document if:

• an agency or Minister decides:
  • to refuse to give access to an exempt document (s 22(1)(a)(i)), or
  • that to give access to a document would disclose information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to the request for access (s 22(1)(a)(ii)), and
• it is possible for the agency or Minister to prepare an edited copy of the document (s 22(1)(b)), and
• it is reasonably practicable to prepare an edited copy, having regard to the nature and extent of the modification required, and the resources available to modify the document (s 22(1)(c)), and
• it is not apparent, from an applicant's request or consultation with the applicant, that the applicant would decline access to the edited copy (s 22(1)(d)).

A request should be interpreted as extending to any document that might reasonably be taken to be included within the description the applicant has used.[26]

Whether reasonable steps taken to find documents (s 24A)

Section 24A of the FOI Act requires that an agency take 'all reasonable steps' to find a requested document before refusing access to it on the basis that it cannot be found or does not exist.

The Act is silent on what constitutes 'all reasonable steps'. The meaning of 'reasonable' in the context of s 24A(1)(a) has been construed as not going beyond the limit assigned by reason, not extravagant or excessive, moderate and of such an amount, size or number as is judged to be appropriate or suitable to the circumstances or purpose.

Agencies and ministers should undertake a reasonable search on a flexible and common-sense interpretation of the terms of the request. What constitutes a reasonable search will depend on the circumstances of each request and will be influenced by the normal business practices in the agency's operating environment or the minister's office. At a minimum, an agency or minister should take comprehensive steps to locate documents, having regard to:

• the subject matter of the documents
• the current and past file management systems and the practice of destruction or removal of documents, and
• the record management systems in place
• the individuals within an agency or minister's office who may be able to assist with the location of documents, and
• the age of the documents.[27]

Section 47F of the FOI Act states 'A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a deceased person).'

Section 4(1) of the FOI Act states 'personal information' has the same meaning as the Privacy Act 1988, which provides:

personal information means information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable:

(a) whether the information or opinion is true or not; and

(b) whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not.[28]

Section 47F(2) of the FOI Act states that in determining whether the disclosure of the document would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information, an agency or Minister decision maker must have regard to the following matters:

• the extent to which the information is well known
• whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be (or to have been) associated with the matters dealt with in the document
• the availability of the information from publicly available sources, and
• any other matters that the agency or Minister considers relevant.

As discussed in the FOI Guidelines and IC review cases,[29] the main requirements of this public interest conditional exemption are that a document contains 'personal information;' disclosure in response to the applicant's FOI request would be 'unreasonable' (s 47(1)); and it would be 'contrary to the public interest' to release the material at the time of the decision (s 11A(5)).

The FOI Guidelines explain that the test of 'unreasonableness' in s 47F 'implies a need to balance the public interest in disclosure of government-held information and the private interest in the privacy of individuals'.[30]

In addition to the mandatory factors outlined at s 47F(2) of the FOI Act, the FOI Guidelines explain that other relevant factors include:

a) the author of the document is identifiable

b) the document contains third party personal information

c) release of the document would cause stress to the third party

d) no public purpose would be achieved through release.

• the nature, age and current relevance of the information
• any detriment that disclosure may cause to the person to whom the information relates
• any opposition to disclosure expressed or likely to be held by that person
• the circumstances of an agency's or minister's collection and use of the information
• the fact that the FOI Act does not control or restrict any subsequent use or dissemination of information released under the FOI Act
• any submission an FOI applicant chooses to make in support of their request as to their reasons for seeking access and their intended or likely use or dissemination of the information and
• whether disclosure of the information might advance the public interest in government transparency and integrity.[31]

The last-mentioned factor - the public interest in government transparency and integrity - is to be balanced with all other relevant factors arising in the particular case, including the private interest that third party individuals may have in maintaining privacy of their personal information.[32]

Section 11A(5)of the FOI Act states the agency or Minister must give the person access to the document if it is conditionally exempt at a particular time unless (in the circumstances) access to the document at that time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

Section 11B(3) of the FOI Act sets out a non-exhaustive list of public interest factors favouring disclosure for consideration, those factors being where disclosure of the document would do any of the following:

(c) promote effective oversight of public expenditure

(d) allow a person access to their personal information.

Section 11B(4) of the FOI Act also lists the following irrelevant factors that must not be taken into consideration when deciding whether access would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest:

(a) access to the document could result in embarrassment to the Commonwealth Government, or cause a loss of confidence in the Commonwealth Government

(b) access to the document could result in any person misinterpreting or misunderstanding the document

(c) the author of the document was (or is) of high seniority in the agency to which the request for access to the document was made

(d) access to the document could result in confusion or unnecessary debate.

In addition to the factors set out at s 11B(3) of the FOI Act, the FOI Guidelines set out a further non-exhaustive list of public interest factors in favour of disclosure, as well as public interest factors against disclosure.[33]

To conclude that, on balance, disclosure of a document would be contrary to the public interest is to conclude that the benefit to the public resulting from disclosure is outweighed by the benefit to the public of withholding the information. The decision maker must analyse, in each case, where on balance the public interest lies based on the particular facts at the time the decision is made.[34]

If a party to an IC review is unsatisfied with an IC review decision, they may apply under s 57A of the FOI Act to have the decision reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). The ART provides independent merits review of administrative decisions and has power to set aside, vary, or affirm an IC review decision.

An application to the ART must be made within 28 days of the day on which the applicant is given the IC review decision (see s 18(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and rule 5(3) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024). An application fee may be payable when lodging an application for review to the ART. Further information is available on the ART's website (www.art.gov.au) or by telephoning 1800 228 333.

Making a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman

If you believe you have been treated unfairly by the OAIC, you can make a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Ombudsman). The Ombudsman's services are free. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about the administrative actions of Australian Government agencies to see if you have been treated unfairly.

If the Ombudsman finds your complaint is justified, the Ombudsman can recommend that the OAIC reconsider or change its action or decision or take any other action that the Ombudsman considers is appropriate. You can contact the Ombudsman's office for more information on 1300 362 072 or visit the Commonwealth Ombudsman's website at http://www.ombudsman.gov.au.

If you would like access to the information that we hold about you, please contact FOIDR@oaic.gov.au. More information is available on the Access our information page on our website.

[1] On 20 November 2024 the Department provided an additional 412 pages (with exemption claims) to the OAIC, being the applicant's complete electronic file in relation to their Student subsequent entrant higher education (subclass 500) visa application. It is the OAIC's understanding that this redacted material has not yet been released to the applicant.

[2] This is Document 1 in the schedule to the Department's internal review decision of 6 January 2021.

[3] The OAIC has labelled the document released to the applicant pursuant to the Department's original decision as Document 1(a).

[4] Documents 2 and 4 are the documents labelled as such in the schedule to the Department's internal review decision of 6 January 2021.

[5] On the question of the processing deadlines that now apply, see Fletcher and Prime Minister of Australia [2013] AICmr 11 at [33] - [38].

[6] Freedom of Information (Reform) Act 2010 Act 51 of 2010.

[7] See, for example, s 24(2) of the FOI Act as originally enacted in 1982.

[8] Subject to the very limited exception in s 25 of the FOI Act which enables an agency to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain documents. This issue was not raised by the Department in the course of this IC review.

[9] One document was released pursuant to the Department's original decision and five further documents were released pursuant to the Department's internal review decision.

[10] The OAIC has labelled this Document 7 for ease of reference.

[11] The Department advised the applicant that it had determined that only documents (or parts of documents) that related to the applicant's spouse's marital status, or whether they provided information about their marital status, were relevant to the request.

[13] Sections 11A, 22, 24A and 47F set out in Annexure C.

[14] See, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner_, Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under_ s 93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Guidelines).

[16] The OAIC has labelled this Document 1(a) for ease of reference.

[17] No exemption claims have been made by the Department against this material nor is it claimed to be irrelevant under s 22(1)(a)(ii).

[18] Freedom of Information (Reform) Act 2010 Act 51 of 2010.

[19] See, for example, s 24(2) of the FOI Act as originally enacted in 1982.

[20] Subject to the very limited exception in s 25 of the FOI Act which enables an agency to neither confirm nor deny the existence of certain documents. This issue was not raised by the Department in the course of this IC review.

[21] See, for example, page 71 of Document 7.

[22] See, for example, page 71 of Document 7.

[23] The FOI Guidelines state at paragraph [3.35] that, 'A person's right of access is not affected by any reasons they give for seeking access or any belief the agency or minister may have as to the reasons for seeking access (s 11(2)). In general, any use an applicant might make of the documents is not relevant to the decision whether to grant them access...'.

[24] I note that there are some inconsistencies in the application of the s 47F exemption by the Department to the personal information of third-parties. I consider that any personal information of third-parties marked for release was done in error and that the Department intended to claim that all personal information of third-parties is exempt.

[26] FOI Guidelines at [3.54] footnoting Re Gould and Department of Health [1985] AATA 63.

[27] FOI Guidelines at [3.88] - [3.89]. For further information, see FOI Guidelines at [3.85] - [3.94]; 'RD' and Comcare (Freedom of information) [2019] AICmr 61; 'PK' and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 65; 'PI' and Department of Human Services (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 62; 'PF' and Department of Human Services (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 59; 'OP' and Department of Home Affairs (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 43; Josh Taylor and Prime Minister of Australia (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 42.

[28] Section 6(1) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (emphasis in original).

[29] Generally, see FOI Guidelines at [6.119] - [6.155]; 'AEE' and Department of Defence (Freedom of information) [2023] AICmr 69; 'AED' and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (Freedom of information) [2023] AICmr 67; 'OE' and Australian Taxation Office (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 29.

[31] FOI Guidelines at [6.137] - [6.138] (footnotes omitted).

[33] FOI Guidelines at [6.229] - [6.233].

[34] FOI Guidelines at [6.238] (footnote omitted).