Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2012-02-01|Before: John P, Macnamara DP, As Macnamara DP

For the reasons previously given the exemption under Section 33(1) should be sustained with respect to this document. I observe with respect to this document and others that Mr Corry is likely already well aware of the names in question. The nature of the 'LEAP' system was not explored in evidence before me. It is sufficiently notorious that I believe I am entitled to notice that it is a computer system used to log the activities of Victoria Police and actual or alleged offences. It is difficult to see that such a computer program could be regarded as part of Victoria Police's deliberative processes or that its contents could be characterised as constituting or revealing opinion, recommendation or advice. The exemption claimed under Section 30(1) is not made out.

The exemption with respect to Section 35(1)(b) is claimed in relation to a portion of the printout under the heading 'case progress narrative' and the sub-heading 'additional information'. This additional information includes the substance of the complaint. For reasons which I have given previously I do not believe that the exemption under Section 35(1)(b) should be regarded as made out with respect to this part of the text. Complainants of domestic violence will not be deterred from making complaints by the knowledge that their complaints may be ventilated at some time in the future. Many or most of these complaints are ventilated in court anyway. In so far as this text includes a narrative as distinct from merely names and personal particulars, whilst it could be regarded as personal information, I would not in the circumstances regard the disclosure of such personal information as being unreasonable. Whilst the information might be personal to the complainant (his ex-wife) in this case it is also personal to the applicant. Accordingly, the Section 33(1) exemption with respect to this document is to be regarded as made out only with respect to names and personal particulars, not with respect to narrative details.

The four pages of Document 26 each show a highly coded Sub Incident Summary Report, which is so abbreviated as to make little sense to the casual reader. Persons involved are named. There is no text under the heading Case Progress Narrative, unlike in the material apparently before Macnamara DP, where such texts existed.
After considering the evidence from Victoria Police in this proceeding, for the reasons given above, I agree with Macnamara DP, that names, addresses and telephone numbers (Mr Corry is not seeking addresses and telephone numbers) are exempt under section 30(1). I add that the information about genders and dates of birth are also exempt as they are also identifying material.
I also agree with Macnamara DP that the exemption of the rest of the documents is not made out under section 33(1), moreso here as none of the entries show a Case Progress Narrative.
I do not find the Ombudsman's observations particularly relevant to decisions about the LEAP database in the context of a Freedom of Information request. His report focuses on unauthorised use of the information. A decision under the FOI Act is taken to consider whether release should be authorised under law.

Mr Corry invokes the public interest invoking the public interest override under Section 50(4) of the Freedom of Information Act.
On the issue of whether release of the documents in question was required by the public interest under section 50(4) of the FOI Act. Mr Corry's 'public interest grounds' filed with VCAT on 22 July 2011, spoke of the public interest being advanced, including:

if documents disclose false statements, misinformation or misconduct, particularly by public officials; 2. by the avoidance of significant and avoidable injustice;

by the promotion of public debate, transparency and accountability;

by the exposure of flaws in corrupt systems; and 2. by the revealing the illegality, impropriety, sharp practice, wrongdoing and/or misconduct.
Victoria Police submitted the evidence before me could not lead to conclusions that the public interest required the release of any of the documents in dispute including with reference to the factors Mr Corry claims.
Where I have upheld an exemption under Section 33(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, the public interest override does not apply.
Where I have upheld an exemption under another section, in my view the public interest override does not here operate to require the disclosure of the documents.
The High Court of Australia has said decision-makers must be satisfied to a high threshold that the public interest requires release of the document. In Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2010] HCA 24, French CJ, Gummow and Bell JJ said at paragraph 14,

It must be accepted that the word "requires" which appears in section 50(4) directs the decision-maker to identify a high-threshold public interest before the power can be exercised. It is not enough that access to the documents could be justified in the public interest.

In my view that high threshold is not reached. I add that having read the documents in dispute, in my view their contents do not lead to such a conclusion. As Victoria Police submits, Mr Corry is free to, has and it appears will continue to, criticise Victoria Police in the public domain.

[1] See Balmford J's in Anteden Pty Ltd v Glen Eira City Council [2000] VSC 366 (14 September 2000), at 25

Corry v Victoria Police (General) [2012] VCAT 135 (1 February 2012)

Corry v Victoria Police (General) [2011] VCAT 2107 (10 November 2011)

Victoria Police v Marke [2008] VSCA 218

Anteden Pty Ltd v Glen Eira City Council [2000] VSC 366 (14 September 2000)

Corry v Victoria Police - FOI Privacy Division (General) [2010] VCAT 1096 (9 June 2010)

Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2010] HCA 24

Mr Corry is a retired teacher. This is his second application to VCAT under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). His first application was also against Victoria Police. It arose from the same original circumstances as this one. Therefore, these reasons draw from VCAT's previous decision by Macnamara DP in Corry v Victoria Police - FOI Privacy Division (General) [2010] VCAT 282 (15 March 2010) (Corry No. 1).
To give these reasons context, a detailed background follows. Decisions are set out from the bottom of page 7.
As Macnamara DP summarised in Corry No. 1, for about 27 years Mr Corry was married to Ms Maria Radanov. On 11 November 2007, police officers were called to their home. Two officers attended. Ms Radanov made allegations against Mr Corry including that he assaulted and threatened her.
Mr Corry denies the allegations. He says that when officers attended, one officer did not interview Ms Radanov, but sat watching soccer on television with Mr Corry. The other officer interviewed Ms Radanov, who decided not to bring any criminal charges against Mr Corry. However, one officer completed a complaint for an intervention order, on behalf of Ms Radanov. This led to an interim intervention order, as described below at paragraph 12. A full intervention order was then made by consent.
Charges were later laid against Mr Corry alleging breach of the final intervention order. Mr Corry obtained assistance from a barrister, who advised him there must be a serious risk of being convicted on at least one of 25 charges. Mr Corry would have a criminal record. This would be an embarrassment and an obstacle to his returning to teaching. Mr Corry pleaded guilty to four charges and was dealt with under a diversionary program.

Victoria Police submits, concerning exemptions claimed under section 30, that each exemption claimed in the sample documents concerns communication between investigating officers. It refers to Bell J's decision (as VCAT's past president) in XYZ v Victoria Police (General) [2010] VCAT 255 (16 March 2010) (para 135), where he said,

In Ryder v Booth access was sought to medical reports furnished to the State Superannuation Board. Based on the Court's view that it was insufficient to make out the exemption that examining doctors would report less candidly the exemption was held not to be made out. In Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Sifredi [2000] VSC 33; (2000) 16 VAR 347 Hedigan J held on appeal that this Tribunal was entitled to conclude that a response given by a practitioner to the Board in the course of its enquiry into a complaint against the practitioner was not exempt under Section 35(1)(b) because the evidence did not establish that a practitioner in these circumstances would not respond at all, merely that he or she might respond with greater circumspection or less candour.

Corry v Victoria Police

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (10 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (9)

Corry v Victoria Police (General) [2012] VCAT 135 (1 February 2012)