Freedom of Information - Whether matter irrelevant to request - Whether reasonable steps taken to find documents - Whether disclosure would have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel - Whether contrary to public interest to release conditionally exempt documents - (CTH) Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 11A, 22, 24A and 47E(c)

1. Under s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I set aside the internal review decision of the Australian Federal Police (the AFP) of 14 February 2021 as varied on 31 July 2023.
2. I substitute my decision as follows:
   • The AFP has taken all reasonable steps to locate documents relevant to the applicant's requests and further relevant documents within the scope of the requests cannot be found or do not exist (s 24A).
   • The material the AFP maintains is conditionally exempt under s 47E(c), is conditionally exempt and release would be contrary to the public interest at this time.
   • Document 25 that the AFP maintains is irrelevant to the scope of the applicant's requests is not irrelevant (s 22).
   • Document 25 is conditionally exempt in full under s 47E(c) of the FOI Act and release would be contrary to the public interest at this time.
3. Within 28 days of this decision:
   • the AFP must provide the applicant with a copy of the documents, edited under s 22 of the FOI Act only to the extent necessary to delete material I have found to be exempt or material that is irrelevant, and
   • the AFP 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 47E(c) of the FOI Act to documents in relation to the investigation of workplace complaints. It is primarily of interest to the parties in relation to the specific documents sought.
2. This decision is made on the same day as 'AWH' and Australian Federal Police (Freedom of information) [2025] AICmr 97 (22 May 2025).

1. On 25 August 2020, the applicant submitted two applications to the AFP for access to:
   1. The Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) investigation report from Mills Oakley, provided to the AFP in August 2019.
   2. All material held by the AFP in relation to a specified complaint number which was investigated by a named officer. The applicant provided the 'date of the incident' to be June 2019 to April 2020.
2. On 24 November 2020, the AFP provided its decision in relation to both requests. The AFP identified 45 documents (27 documents and 18 attachments) and decided to release two documents in full and refuse access to seven documents in part and 36 documents in full, on the basis of ss 22(1)(a) (irrelevant information), s 47E(c) (management and assessment of personnel) and s 47F (personal information).
3. The applicant sought internal review. In response, on 14 February 2021, the AFP varied the original decision and granted further access to information in the documents, with exemptions applied under ss 47E(c) and 47F. The AFP otherwise affirmed the original decision.
4. On 31 July 2023, the AFP made a revised decision under s 55G of the FOI Act. The AFP decided to release two documents in full and 17 documents in part and refuse access to 25 documents in full, on the basis of ss 22(1)(a) (irrelevant information), s 47E(c) (management and assessment of personnel) and s 47F (personal information). The AFP also decided to delete one document (Document 25) on the basis that it had been wrongly included as being relevant to the scope of the applicant's requests (s 22).
5. The AFP made its revised decision in consultation with four affected third parties, whom the AFP had not consulted previously.[1] The third parties object to the disclosure of their personal information within the documents at issue, on the basis of s 47F.
6. The applicant takes issue with the AFP's interpretation of the scope of their requests, particularly the second request above (s 24A of the FOI Act). The applicant also contests the AFP's broad application of the exemptions under ss 47E(c) and 47F of the FOI Act and seeks a review of the AFP's decision to delete Document 25 on the basis it is irrelevant to the scope of their requests under s 22(1)(a) of the FOI Act.[2]
7. The issues to be decided in this Information Commissioner review (IC review) are therefore whether:
   • Document 25 that the AFP maintains is irrelevant to the scope of the applicant's requests is irrelevant (s 22).
   • The AFP has taken all reasonable steps to identify documents within the scope of the applicant's requests and that further documents cannot be found or do not exist, under s 24A of the FOI Act.
   • The material that the AFP maintains is conditionally exempt under ss 47E(c) and 47F of the FOI Act is conditionally exempt under those provisions, and if so, whether giving the applicant access to the conditionally exempt 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.[3]
9. In making my decision, I have had regard to the following:
   • the AFP's internal review decision and reasons for decision of 14 February 2021
   • the AFP's revised decision and reasons for decision of 31 July 2023
   • the documents at issue
   • the FOI Act[4]
   • the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the FOI Act[5] to which agencies must have regard in performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI Act (FOI Guidelines),[6] and
   • the parties' submissions.

1. When deciding if material is irrelevant to the applicant's request, the FOI Guidelines explain that 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.[7]
2. In the revised decision, the AFP deleted Document 25 on the basis it is irrelevant to the applicant's requests. The AFP submits that the document contains an email chain created after the applicant's FOI requests. The email alerted individuals within the AFP that an FOI request had been received, seeking information in relation to the complaints.
3. The applicant submits that the schedule of the AFP's revised decision provides that Document 25 relates to an email chain dated 12 March 2020 - 13 March 2020, prior to the date their FOI requests were made on in August 2020.
4. The FOI Guidelines provides that the right of access applies to documents that exist at the time the FOI request was made.[8]
   1. From my review of an unedited copy of Document 25, I agree with the applicant and find that the relevant emails in the email chain predate the applicant's requests.[9] Given the emails are related to an FOI request which sought access to documents in relation to the complaint number specified in the applicant's requests, I find that Document 25 is relevant to the scope of the applicant's second request.

1. Document 25 that the AFP maintains is irrelevant under s 22 of the FOI Act, is not irrelevant to the scope of the applicant's requests.

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

1. 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 a document cannot be found or does not exist.
2. The applicant submits that the AFP did not consult with them in relation to altering the complaint number specified in their second request.
3. The AFP submits that:
   • The AFP have interpreted the applicant's second request to be a request for a different complaint number, and not the complaint number specified in the applicant's second request, because of the additional information provided in the request.
4. When interpreting the scope of a request, the FOI Guidelines provide that the request should be interpreted as extending to any document that might reasonably be taken to be included within the description the applicant has used.[10]
5. If there is any doubt, the agency or minister should consult the applicant to discuss exactly what documents are being requested.[11]
6. Based on the evidence before me and the parties' submissions, I agree that the complaint number provided by the applicant in their request was incorrect and that the AFP conducted searches in relation to the correct complaint number.

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

1. The AFP maintains that the conditional exemption in s 47E(c) of the FOI Act applies to 25 documents in full and 17 documents in part.
2. The documents comprise the Work, Health and Safety Investigation Report (the WHS Investigation Report) and the CRAMS[12] file:
   • The WHS Investigation Report was prepared by Mills Oakly and is dated 8 August 2019. It includes Annexures A-K comprising the relevant Workplace Incident Reports, witness statements, response statements and general information including the investigation terms of reference and the AFP Guide to Conducting Workplace Investigations.
   • The CRAMS file generally comprises:
     • Correspondence between the PRS Investigator,[13] tasked with conducting a Category 2 Conduct Investigation (the PRS Investigation), and other members of the AFP in relation to their appointment, the conduct of the investigation and the preparation of the PRS Investigation report.
     • Correspondence between the PRS Investigator and those involved in the investigation (the complainants and the subjects of their complaint), in the course of conducting the investigation.
     • The outcomes reached by the PRS Investigator and the PRS Investigation report.
     • Summaries of the complaints and responses to the complaints.
3. Subsection 47E(c) of the FOI Act provides that a document is exempt if its disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth or by an agency.

... the predicted effect needs to be reasonably expected to occur... There must be more than merely an assumption or allegation that damage may occur if the document is released ... > > An agency cannot merely assert that an effect will occur following disclosure. The particulars of the predicted effect should be identified during the decision-making process, including whether the effect could reasonably be expected to occur. Where the conditional exemption is relied on, the relevant particulars and reasons should form part of the decision maker's statement of reasons, if they can be included without disclosing exempt matter.[14]

2. For this conditional exemption to apply, the document must relate to either:
   • the management of personnel - including broader human resources policies and activities, recruitment, promotion, compensation, discipline, harassment and work health and safety, or
   • the assessment of personnel - including the broader performance management policies and activities concerning competency, in-house training requirements, appraisals and underperformance, counselling, feedback, assessment for bonus or eligibility for progression.[15]

1. The AFP submits, in summary:
   • The WHS Investigation Report was prepared by an external consultant engaged by the AFP in relation to a workplace health and safety review arising from alleged inappropriate behaviour. The CRAMS investigation (the PRS Investigation) was then undertaken, in order to investigate and determine whether any of the allegations constituted a conduct issue in accordance with the AFP Commissioner's Order on Professional Standards.
   • The AFP Better Practice Guide for Conducting Workplace Incident and Hazard Investigations provides that information within incident reports is confidential and not to be disclosed without the express permission of the affected person. This confidentiality would also extend to the same material in the CRAMS documents and the AFP's internal deliberations in the course of that investigation.
   • The CRAMS file contains detailed allegations of workplace misconduct, including bullying complaints. The file contains communications with and information from other individuals involved in the allegations. This information includes mixed personal information and is implicitly confidential in nature.
2. The AFP further submits that in both processes, it is essential that investigations are informed by candid and factual information to make a fair and informed assessment. Release of information of this nature could reasonably be expected to have a substantial and adverse effect on the AFP's management of personnel.[16] It would also undermine the confidence of AFP personnel in the fairness of a process if those who faced allegations that were investigated and not ultimately substantiated are subjected to the prospect of having to deal with these again years later.
3. In relation to specific documents, the AFP submits:
   • while the WHS Investigation Report was partly prepared with reference to information from the applicant, the purpose of the Report and the analysis, conclusions and recommendations contained therein concern the AFP's management and assessment of personnel and workplace matters
   • the CRAMS documents contain personal and employment information about AFP members, and details about the steps or enquiries undertaken by AFP Professional Standards investigators in conducting an internal investigation. Maintaining confidentiality, and ensuring the veracity of the internal investigation process, is integral to personnel management within the AFP, and
   • disclosure of information concerning Professional Standards matters would prejudice the AFP's ability to properly investigate alleged integrity breaches and other misconduct.
4. The applicant submits:
   • The AFP have used the ss 47E(c) and 47F exemptions to universally exclude material relating to the WHS Investigation and CRAMS complaint/investigation including information relating to the CRAMS investigations process and outcomes.
   • Decisions in relation to AFP's operations should only have weight if the AFP is undertaking its investigations in an 'expected manner'. The applicant does not believe the AFP has met this element of the conditional exemption, in relation to the PRS investigation.[17]
   • The AFP's failure to follow the correct process, did not afford the applicant natural justice and procedurally, caused bias in favour of the alleged subject of the complaints. This has led to detrimental or disadvantageous outcomes for them and others including causing further significant injury.
   • Release of documents in relation to the processes involving PRS investigations and safety in the AFP workplace are of considerable public interest and debate.[18]

1. As noted by former FOI Commissioner Hardiman in 'ACQ' and Australian Federal Police (Freedom of information) [2022] AICmr 79 (22 December 2022) ('ACQ'), the issue of whether disclosure of documents pertaining to a workplace investigation would discourage cooperation of agency staff members in response to future investigations has been canvassed in a number of IC review and AAT decisions.[19]
2. I note the AFP's submissions refer to the AAT decision of De Tarle and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] AATA 230, in which Senior Member Isenberg accepted that candour is essential when an agency seeks to investigate complaints, especially those of bullying and harassment, as staff may be reluctant to provide information and cooperate with investigators if they were aware that the subject matter of those discussions would be disclosed and made public.
3. Having regard to this and other, more recent, IC review decisions,[20] I accept the AFP's contentions that the disclosure of the information that the AFP found to be exempt under s 47E(c), would likely discourage individuals from participating in future investigations of a similar nature. I consider the disclosure of this information, including the names of those individuals involved in the workplace investigation and the information provided by them in the course of the investigation, could reasonably be expected to cause those who experience future workplace incidents to be reluctant to report incidents and participate in investigations. I agree that outcome would have a substantial adverse effect on the AFP's ability to manage and assess its staff.

1. From my review of the unedited copy of the WHS Investigation Report, I find that it summarises the witness testimony of the third party individuals directly involved in the complaint allegations and contains detailed findings that are based on that evidence.
2. Consistent with the reasoning in the relevant IC review decisions, I accept the AFP's contentions that the disclosure of the material at issue within the WHS Investigation Report could reasonably be expected to discourage individuals from raising similar concerns or participating in investigations in the future.

1. My review of the documents identified by the AFP as being relevant to the PRS Investigation (CRAMS file) has revealed that they comprise mainly correspondence either between:
   • the PRS Investigator and those involved in the investigation, or
   • between the PRS Investigator and other members of the AFP.[21]
2. The CRAMS file also consists of other documents, such as the investigation lodgement and allocation records, professional standards evaluation forms, file notes, complaint minutes, conflict of interest declarations, investigation summaries and notifications of outcome.
3. Based on my review of an unedited copy of these documents and the parties' submissions, I understand the PRS Investigation was a separate process that occurred after the WHS Investigation. It involved the investigation of some of the allegations which were internally referred to the PRS team after the conclusion of the WHS Investigation, to consider possible breaches of the AFP's Code of Conduct. This process was therefore distinct from the WHS Investigation, which was instigated by the receipt of complaints of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace by the complainants.
4. In my view, the material at issue contained in the CRAMS file squarely relates to the AFP's management of its staff, in particular the AFP's investigation of whether breaches of the AFP's Code of Conduct had occurred. I accept that the disclosure of this material would be likely to result in a substantial adverse effect on the AFP's management or assessment of its staff under s 47E(c).
5. For the above reasons, I consider the disclosure of this material would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel by the AFP (s 47E(c)).

1. I am satisfied that the material at issue is conditionally exempt under s 47E(c) of the FOI Act.

1. The AFP also maintains that the material at issue is conditionally exempt under s 47F of the FOI Act.
2. As I have found the material at issue is conditionally exempt under s 47E(c), it is not necessary for me to consider whether the conditional exemption in s 47F also applies.

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

1. As I have found parts of the WHS Investigation Report and the CRAMS file to be conditionally exempt under ss 47E(c), I must proceed to consider whether it would be contrary to the public interest to give the applicant access to those parts at this time (s 11A(5) of the FOI Act).
2. The requirements of the public interest test are set out at Annexure A. 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. In considering the public interest, I have had regard to the parties' submissions.
   1. In relation to the s 47E(c) material, I find that a number of factors favouring disclosure can be identified, including that disclosure would:
      • promote the objects of the FOI Act
      • inform debate on a matter of public importance
      • promote effective oversight of public expenditure
      • reveal the reason for a government decision and any background or contextual information that informed the decision, and
      • provide transparency into the policies and processes followed by an investigating officer in their review of allegations.
   2. The AFP submits that while substantial weight should be attributed to the applicant's interest in accessing information about a matter affecting them, the following factors against disclosure apply to the material at issue as release would:
      • prejudice the protection of the rights to privacy of the affected third parties
      • prejudice the fair treatment of those individuals and the information is about unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct or unlawful, negligent or improper conduct
      • prejudice the AFP's management function, particularly within the office in question, and
      • impede the flow of information in future processes and undermine the scope for less formal resolution of workplace incidents or grievances.
   3. Having regard to the information before me and the parties' submissions, I have given significant weight to the factors favouring disclosure, particularly the public interest in transparency and integrity around behaviour in workplaces.
   4. Nevertheless, I accept the AFP's contention that greater weight should be applied to the factors against disclosure. In particular, I consider that the public interest in maintaining the privacy of third-party individuals involved in such workplace incidents to be a strong factor against disclosure. This is because disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of those individuals.
   5. Further, having regard to the nature of the allegations, I accept that the relevant individuals would likely hold an expectation that information provided to the AFP would be treated in a confidential manner. Disclosure of the material at issue would undermine that expectation of confidentiality and would likely have an adverse effect on the willingness of other individuals to participate in future investigations or reporting workplace incidents in the future.
   6. When considering whether disclosure of a document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest, it is important to contemplate the effects that disclosure would have, taking into account the nature and purpose of the relevant information. I have considered the context of the material at issue and I accept that the AFP relies heavily on individuals to participate in the investigation of complaints. If individuals are discouraged from reporting incidents or providing information to such investigations, it would significantly impact on the AFP's ability to undertake future investigations. I agree that the impact on the AFP's ability to properly manage its staff, preserve reasonably held expectations of confidentiality and ultimately fulfil its functions to the community at large weighs heavily against disclosure of the material at issue.

1. Consistent with previous AAT and IC review decisions discussed above, I find that giving the applicant access to the conditionally exempt material within the WHS Investigation Report and CRAMS file would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. These documents are therefore exempt in part under s 47E(c) of the FOI Act.

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

Section 11A(4) of the FOI Act states the agency or Minister is not required by this Act to give the person access to the document at a particular time if, at that time, the document is an exempt document.

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, 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.[22]

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.[23]

Certain operations of agencies exemption (s 47E(c))

Section 47E(c) of the FOI Act states a document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth or by an agency.

the predicted effect needs to be reasonably expected to occur... There must be more than merely an assumption or allegation that damage may occur if the document is released.

...

An agency cannot merely assert that an effect will occur following disclosure. The particulars of the predicted effect should be identified during the decision-making process, including whether the effect could reasonably be expected to occur. Where the conditional exemption is relied on, the relevant particulars and reasons should form part of the decision maker's statement of reasons, if they can be included without disclosing exempt matter (s 26, see Part 3).[24]

For this conditional exemption to apply, the document must relate to either:

• the management of personnel - including broader human resources policies and activities, recruitment, promotion, compensation, discipline, harassment and work health and safety

• the assessment of personnel - including the broader performance management policies and activities concerning competency, in-house training requirements, appraisals and underperformance, counselling, feedback, assessment for bonus or eligibility for progression.[25]

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.[26]

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.[27]

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] In submissions dated 1 August 2023, the AFP advises that the material to which the third parties objected to the disclosure of has been withheld under ss 47E(c) and 47F.

[2] The applicant also takes issue with the combination of their two FOI requests by the AFP. In doing so, the applicant submits this shielded the AFP's actions in removing duplicate documents that may have been responsive to both requests. In its original decision of 24 November 2020, the AFP advised the applicant it had deleted duplicate documents and would provide only final email chains under s 22. The AFP also advised that if the applicant did consider duplicates were within the scope of their request, the AFP would have decided the material was exempt under s 47E(c). While it is not accepted practice to delete information from documents in response to an FOI request on the basis it is irrelevant without the applicant's express consent, I note the AFP submits they advised the applicant of their intention to delete duplicates prior to making their decision. Given that the nature of a duplicate is that it is an exact copy of an original, I consider any duplicates deleted under s 22 would be exempt to the same extent as my findings in relation to the documents identified by the AFP.

[4] Sections 11A, 22, 24A, 47E(c) and s 47F as set out in Annexure A.

[5] 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).

[9] The applicant's requests are dated 25 August 2020 and the relevant emails in the chain are dated from 12 March 2020 to 13 March 2020. This is despite the last email in the chain (an email from the PRS Investigator forwarding the email chain as it was responsive to the applicant's FOI request) being dated after the date of the applicant's request.

[10] FOI Guidelines [3.54], citing Re Gould and Department of Health [1985] AATA 63.

[12] The AFP's Complaint Recording and Management System.

[13] The documents confirm the person named in the applicant's request was the PRS Investigator.

[14] FOI Guidelines at [6.90] and [6.92].

[15] FOI Guidelines at [6.103] (footnote omitted).

[16] The AFP cites the matter of 'GC' and Australian Federal Police [2015] AICmr 44, in which the former Information Commissioner Professor McMillan dealt with a similar situation and affirmed the AFP's decision to refuse access to the documents.

[17] The applicant explains that the AFP's decision to complete a WHS investigation and not treat the referral of the code of conduct allegations as alleged by me during the course this WHS investigation, as a proper CRAMS investigation is contrary to section 40SA of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

[18] The applicant notes Senator Shoebridge's Question on Notice taken by the AFP at the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement on Friday, 25 November 2022 and submits it demonstrates concern taken by the public of how the AFP has managed internal complaints, particularly by PRS, in regard to bullying and harassment since the 2016 Change Report authored by Elizabeth Broderick was released.

[19] See De Tarle and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] AATA 230; 'PC' and Australian Taxation Office (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 53; Virginia Plowman and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 5; 'PC' and Australian Taxation Office (Freedom of information) [2018] AICmr 53; QZ' and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (Freedom of information) [2019] AICmr 57; Virginia Plowman and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Freedom of information) [2020] AICmr 59; and 'YB' and Department of Veterans' Affairs [2021] AICmr 52.

[20] See 'AOS' and Department of Finance (Freedom of information) [2024] AICmr 220 (23 October 2024) and Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Department of Finance (Freedom of information) [2023] AICmr 136.

[21] One such email chain relates to another FOI request that was received by the AFP in relation to the investigations, which are the subject of the applicant's requests (Document 25). It contains the name of the individual who made the FOI request and the background to their request. As above, I have found that Document 25 is not irrelevant to the applicant's request. Prior to making the revised decision, the AFP previously contended that Document 25 was exempt under ss 47E(c) and/or 47F. I will therefore include Document 25 in my consideration of whether the documents contained on the CRAMS file are conditionally exempt under s 47E(c).

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

[23] 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.

[25] FOI Guidelines at [6.103] (footnote omitted).

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

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