GXG v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 274;

1. The Tribunal's jurisdiction to conduct this review derives from s100 of the GIPA Act read with s28 of the CAT Act and s9 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act).
2. Section 80 of the GIPA Act sets out those decisions that are "reviewable decisions". Relevantly, reviewable decisions include a decision to refuse to provide access to information in response to an access application - s 80(d).
3. In determining the application, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material before it: ADR Act, s 63(1). The Respondent bears the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the decision it has made is the correct and preferable decision: GIPA Act, s 105(1). The Respondent is not limited to defending the matter on the same basis as it made its original decision: Public Service Assn v Premier's Department [2002] NSWADT 277 at [57] and [59].
4. In determining the application, the Tribunal may affirm the decision, vary the decision, set aside the decision and make another decision in substitution for the decision set aside, or set aside the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the Respondent in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal: ADR Act, s 63(3).
5. In determining the application, the Tribunal is to ensure that it does not, in the reasons for its decision or otherwise, disclose any information for which there is an overriding public interest against disclosure: GIPA Act, s 107(1).

1. Section 3 of the GIPA Act provides the purpose and objects of the GIPA Act:

(1) In order to maintain and advance a system of responsible and representative democratic Government that is open, accountable, fair and effective, the object of this Act is to open government information to the public by--

(a) authorising and encouraging the proactive public release of government information by agencies, and

(b) giving members of the public an enforceable right to access government information, and

(c) providing that access to government information is restricted only when there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.

(a) that this Act be interpreted and applied so as to further the object of this Act, and

(b) that the discretions conferred by this Act be exercised, as far as possible, so as to facilitate and encourage, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, access to government information.

1. A person who applies for access to government information has a legally enforceable right to be provided with access to the information unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of the information: GIPA Act, s 9(1).
2. In a Tribunal review, the agency bears the onus of establishing that its decision was justified: GIPA Act, s 105.
3. Section 5 of the GIPA Act establishes a presumption in favour of disclosure of government information unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.
4. Sections 12 to 15 of the GIPA Act require an agency (and the Tribunal) to conduct a balancing exercise, weighing up competing public interest considerations for and against disclosure, to justify a decision made in relation to an access application.
5. Section 12(1) provides that there is a general public interest in favour of the disclosure of government information.
6. Section 12(2) further provides that nothing limits the considerations in favour of disclosure that may be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure. The Note to s 12(2) lists examples of the types of considerations in favour of disclosure that may be taken into account:

The following are examples of public interest considerations in favour of disclosure of information--

(a) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to promote open discussion of public affairs, enhance Government accountability or contribute to positive and informed debate on issues of public importance.

(b) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to inform the public about the operations of agencies and, in particular, their policies and practices for dealing with members of the public.

(c) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to ensure effective oversight of the expenditure of public funds.

(d) The information is personal information of the person to whom it is to be disclosed.

(e) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal or substantiate that an agency (or a member of an agency) has engaged in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct.

1. Section 13 of the GIPA Act sets out the 'public interest test' for determining whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of information, as follows:

There is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information for the purposes of this Act if (and only if) there are public interest considerations against disclosure and, on balance, those considerations outweigh the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure.

1. Section 14 of the GIPA Act deals with public interest considerations against disclosure. In these proceedings the Respondent is relying on the public interest considerations against disclosure described in the Table to Section 14(2) of the GIPA Act in relation to the information it has withheld. That information is subject to the balancing exercise required by section 13 of the GIPA Act, with reference to the principles expressed at section 15 of the GIPA Act. Relevantly, the Respondent relies on the following public interest considerations against disclosure on the basis that they could reasonably be expected to have the following effects:

(1) (1)(e) - reveal a deliberation or consultation conducted, or an opinion, advice or recommendation given, in such a way as to prejudice a deliberative process of government or an agency.

(2) (1)(f) - prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of the agency's functions.

(3) (2)(b) - prejudice the prevention, detection or investigation of a contravention or a possible contravention of the law or prejudice the enforcement of the law.

(4) (3)(a) - reveal an individual's personal information;

(5) (3)(b) - contravene an Information Privacy Principle under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 or a Health Privacy Principle under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002.

(6) (3)(g) - in the case of the disclosure of personal information about a child--the disclosure of information that it would not be in the best interests of the child to have disclosed.

1. The evidence of the Respondent must satisfy the threshold for each of those clauses, being that it "could reasonably be expected to have one or more of the following effects (whether in a particular case or generally). The words "could reasonably be expected to" have been held to require "something which is more than a mere risk or chance. It must be based on real and substantial grounds, and it must not be purely speculative, fanciful, imaginary or contrived": Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 198 at [28], adopted in Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286 (Flack) at [41]-[42] and cited in Roy v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 120 at [28]. While it must be a "real" risk, the chance of it materialising need not be more probable than not: Neary v State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 107 at [35]- [36] and the cases there cited. The phrase "'simply calls for an "objective assessment', on the evidence before the Tribunal, as to whether the claimed effects could be expected to arise, from the standpoint of a reasonable administrator. Ultimately, it is of course a question of fact": Hall v Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 46 at [45].
2. In Attorney General's Department v Cockcroft [1986] FCA 35; (1986) 10 FCR 180 (Cockcroft) at 190, Bowen CJ and Beaumont JJ interpreted the term in the following way:

In our opinion, in the present context, the words "could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information" were intended to receive their ordinary meaning. That is to say, they require a judgment to be made by the decision-maker as to whether it is reasonable, as distinct from something that is irrational, absurd or ridiculous, to expect that those who would otherwise supply information of the prescribed kind to the Commonwealth or any agency would decline to do so if the document in question were disclosed under the Act. It is undesirable to attempt any paraphrase of these words. In particular, it is undesirable to consider the operation of the provision in terms of probabilities or possibilities or the like...

1. The word "expected" is not to be given too wide a meaning in light of the objectives of the statute: Cockcroft per Sheppard J at 112. The occurrence of the prejudice does not have to be established on the balance of probabilities but there must be something more than a possibility, risk or chance of the event occurring: Cockcroft per Bowen CJ and Beaumont J at [106].
2. The meaning of the word prejudice is to "cause detriment or disadvantage' or to 'impede or derogate from": Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 (Hurst) at paragraph [60].
3. Ultimately, it is a question of fact as to whether the disclosure of the information in issue could reasonably be expected to have the prescribed effect if disclosed. That fact being established to the relevant standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities: Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Barrett [2015] NSWCATAP 68 (Barrett), at [42].
4. Section 15 of the GIPA Act provides that:

A determination as to whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information is to be made in accordance with the following principles:

(a) Agencies must exercise their functions so as to promote the object of this Act.

(b) Agencies must have regard to any relevant guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner.

(c) The fact that disclosure of information might cause embarrassment to, or a loss of confidence in, the Government is irrelevant and must not be taken into account.

(d) The fact that disclosure of information might be misinterpreted or misunderstood by any person is irrelevant and must not be taken into account.

(e) In the case of disclosure in response to an access application, it is relevant to consider that disclosure cannot be made subject to any conditions on the use or disclosure of information.

1. Section 55(1) of the GIPA Act provides for certain personal factors of the application which the decision maker is entitled to take into account in determining whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of information. These are:

(a) the applicant's identity and relationship with any other person,

(b) the applicant's motives for making the access application,

(c) any other factors particular to the applicant.

1. The approach to determining the balance referred to in s 13 of the GIPA Act was summarised in Williams v Department of Industry and Investment [2012] NSWADT 192 at [20] to [22], following Flack and Hurst as requiring decision-makers to:

(1) identify relevant public interest considerations in favour of disclosure,

(2) identify relevant public interest considerations against disclosure,

(3) attribute weight to each consideration for and against disclosure, and

(4) determine whether the balance of the public interest lies in favour of or against disclosure of the government information.

1. Section 101 of the GIPA Act requires that any application for administrative review of a reviewable decision must be made within 40 working days of notification of the decision. On the basis that the relevant reviewable decision was made on 7 June 2024 and the application for administrative review was filed on 16 September 2024, the Applicant was approximately 31 days out of time.
2. Section 101(4) provides that the Tribunal may, on application by a person wanting to make an application for administrative review out of time, extend the time for making an application if the Tribunal is of the opinion that "the person has provided a reasonable excuse for the delay in making the application".
3. The Applicant submitted the following:

On 7 June 2024, the Agency provided the JEC the notice of the Internal Review Decision and provided the JEC with a large volume of released and partially released documents, over 1000 pages. The JEC was conducting a thorough review of these documents, until on 23 July 2024 it came to the JEC's attention that some of the compiled PDF files provided by the Agency mistakenly contained hyperlinks that linked to versions of documents that were not redacted but the JEC suspected were intended to have been redacted by the Agency.

On 23 July 2024, the JEC notified the Agency of this possible inadvertent disclosure. On 24 July 2024, the Agency requested we delete all copies of the documents released by the Internal Review Decision and those documents released by the original decision dated 15 April 2024; and the Agency released a revised bundle of documents to us. The Agency later confirmed its disclosure was unauthorised and inadvertent, and the information should not have been disclosed to us or anyone else.

The JEC proceeded to review the new bundle of documents released on 24 July 2024, a task which has taken several weeks to complete due to the large volume of materials. Unfortunately, this meant that an application for administrative review was not able to be lodged within 40 working days of the Internal Review Decision. This application has however, been made within 40 working days of the date the documents were re-released to us, 40 working days expiring on 18 September 2024.

Due to the above reasons, the JEC was not reasonably able to apply for administrative review until this time, and seeks that the Tribunal allow the review to proceed further to s 101 of the GIPA Act.

1. The JEC is the Justice and Equity Centre, representing the Applicant.
2. The Respondent "did not express a view either way" as to whether an extension of time ought to be granted by the Tribunal.
3. The Applicant's submissions repeated factual matters described in an annexure to the Application for review to this Tribunal, and were not disputed by the Respondent. I therefore accept that the events following the Agency's release of documents to the Applicant occurred in the manner described in those submissions.
4. The factual circumstances are that the delay in the Applicant reviewing the documents released by the Respondent was entirely due to the actions of the Respondent in inadvertently releasing unauthorised documents on 7 June 2024, requiring the Applicant on 24 July 2024 to delete them, and then providing the release of authorised documents on 24 July 2024. The volume of documents released and therefore requiring the Applicant's review prior to making an application to this Tribunal, was significant. That volume reasonably would have impacted the Applicant's ability to review all the released documents prior to making an Application for Review to this Tribunal. That the Applicant did review all the released documents and managed to narrow such volume down to just 15 disputed documents impacts positively on the Tribunal's conduct of these proceedings. The Applicant has clearly not "rested" on his rights to seek review. In my view the explanation provided by the Applicant constitutes a reasonable excuse for having not filed the Application for Review within 40 days of being notified of the Internal review decision. It is appropriate therefore for the Tribunal to grant the extension of time sought by the Applicant.
5. For those reasons, at the hearing of the Application for Review, I granted the extension of time.

1. The Applicant is an Aboriginal young person living in regional NSW with his mother and two brothers. He was between 14 and 16 years old when the Disputed Documents were created.
2. Between 11 August 2021 and 19 April 2023, the Applicant was the subject of 129 'bail compliance checks' conducted by officers of the Respondent at his home.
3. On 11 August 2023, the Applicant (by his mother) lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), alleging that the Respondent had engaged in unlawful race discrimination by the 'bail compliance checks' that had been conducted on him in the period referred to in paragraph 38. On 12 March 2024, the Applicant's mother commenced proceedings against the Respondent in the NSW Supreme Court, alleging that certain of the 'bail compliance checks' that occurred in the period referred to in paragraph 38 occurred without lawful authorisation and were unlawful trespasses at her property in respect of which the Respondent is liable for damages.

1. The Applicant relied on an affidavit of Kate Eliza Sinclair dated 31 January 2025. Ms Sinclair is a solicitor employed with the Justice and Equity Centre (JEC), representing the Applicant. The Affidavit provided evidence of the Applicant's race discrimination complaint in the AHRC, the Applicant's mother's proceedings against the State of New South Wales in the Supreme Court, three letters dated 28 June 2022, 17 January 2023, 15 May 2023 written by the Applicant's solicitors to the NSW Police requesting cessation of bail compliance checks, criminal justice statistics published by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), and publications of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC).
2. The LECC publications included a report of an inquiry into the Respondent's 'Suspect Targeting Management Plan' program (STMP): Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, Operation Tepito - Final Report: An investigation into the use of the NSW Police Force Suspect Targeting Management Plan on children and young people, Report (2023) ('Operation Tepito - Final Report') published on 30 October 2023; an issues paper titled "Bail Compliance Checks in NSW - Issues Paper" published on 21 May 2024; copies of submissions made by the NSW Bar Association, Law Society of NSW, Legal Aid NSW, Aboriginal Legal Service, University of NSW Law and Justice Centre, O'Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors, and the JEC to the "Bail Compliance Checks in NSW - Issues Paper"; and a report titled "NSW Police Force Aboriginal Strategic Direction 2018-2023 Monitoring report" published on 23 October 2023.
3. The Respondent relied on the evidence of Detective Inspector Jason Darcy dated 5 December 2024. DI Darcy reviewed the documents being sought by the Applicant and outlined his concerns in relation to the information contained therein.
4. Neither deponent was required for cross examination at the hearing.

1. There are 15 documents which the Respondent has withheld, in whole or in part, and for which the Applicant presses access (the Disputed Documents). Those 15 documents comprise 120 pages. The Respondent describes those 120 pages as including:

...emails communications, discussions of bail enforcement strategies, accounts of particular incidents, an ERISP of an interview with a minor, and intelligence packages.

1. Pursuant to s 105 the onus is on the Respondent to justify the withholding of the information contained in those 15 documents. The Respondent submitted that the subject information could be broadly characterised as:

(1) Information relating to individuals other than the Applicant;

(2) Information revealing internal deliberations and consultations of NSW police officers; and

(3) Information revealing law enforcement strategies, investigations, lines of inquiry and investigative methodologies.

1. The Applicant confirmed at hearing that release of the personal identification information of individuals other than the Applicant was not pressed. However, the Applicant submitted that:

a. the material that has been withheld appears more extensive than is necessary to prevent the disclosure of expected, common categories of 'personal information', to which the Applicant confirms he does not press access; and

b. the Respondent has not identified with sufficient detail or particularity the link between the information in the Disputed Documents and the prejudice that it is said may occur to the Respondent, for the Tribunal to be satisfied to the requisite standard regarding those categories of public interest against disclosure.

Public Interest Considerations For (or, in Favour of) Disclosure

1. In addition to the general public interest described at s 12(1) of the GIPA Act, the Applicant submitted that each of the examples given in the Note to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act (outlined above at [18]) were relevant to the withheld information in these proceedings, and the Tribunal should place significant weight on them as public interest considerations for (or, in favour of) disclosure (PICFD). The evidence contained in Ms Sinclair's affidavit and the reports and submissions she annexed to it were intended to demonstrate and strengthen this submission in relation to the withheld information.
2. In the Reviewable Decision, the Respondent took into account the general public interest at s 12(1) and the following additional considerations in favour of granting disclosure:

a. the information includes the applicant's personal information;

b. disclosure of the information could promote open discussion of public affairs, enhance Government accountability or contribute to positive and informed debate on issues of public importance such as the impact of youth crime in regional areas; and

c. disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to inform the public about the operations of agencies and, in particular, their policies and practices for dealing with members of the public, especially young people.

...the lawfulness and propriety of police strategies for enforcing bail conditions is a matter in which there is both a public interest generally, and a personal interest for the applicant more particularly. Furthermore, the withheld information may be relevant to an assessment of the lawfulness of those strategies and the applicant's particular concerns in that regard.

1. The Tribunal's role involves first determining whether the PICFD apply to the withheld information and then determining what weight to give those considerations. Although this is to be determined by the Tribunal individually with respect to each piece of withheld information, rather than collectively, the Applicant's submissions necessarily addressed the withheld information collectively as it did not have sufficient information to individualise its submissions. I will outline the Applicant's collective submissions on the PICFD and then, with each piece of withheld information, determine which considerations could apply and what weight to give them.

(a) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to promote open discussion of public affairs, enhance Government accountability or contribute to positive and informed debate on issues of public importance; and

(b) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to inform the public about the operations of agencies and, in particular, their policies and practices for dealing with members of the public.

1. The Applicant submitted that Documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 appeared to relate specifically to 'bail enforcement' by employees of the Respondent. Referring to the annexures to Ms Sinclair's affidavit and relying on the findings of the various reports and submissions, including those which expressed that "the Respondent's current practice with respect to bail compliance checks is unlawful", the Applicant submitted:

...there is a public interest in greater transparency around the basis upon which particular young people, particularly Aboriginal young people, are being targeted for 'proactive policing' interventions. Further information about these practices is likely to enable greater scrutiny and community members, civil society organisations and the public more broadly would have significantly increased capacity to engage in positive and informed debate about proactive policing strategies broadly and the practice of bail compliance checking more particularly.

1. The Applicant referred to the Tribunal's findings in Morgan v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 173 at [78]- [79]:

[T]here is significant public interest in the policing and incarceration of indigenous Australians. There is significant public interest in the public being informed about practical examples of being detained by police, arrest and such practices... [the applicant] seeks to inform the public about matters concerning his arrest and the broader issue of the policing of indigenous Australians. His motives in my view add significant weight for granting the access application... disclosure of the information sought by [the applicant] will inform the public about the operation of the police and their policies and practices in dealing with indigenous Australians.

People being subjected to bail compliance checks by the Respondent are members of the public. Information concerning the process or manner by which bail compliance checks and proactive policing are undertaken by employees of the Respondent, is information about their policies and practices for dealing with members of the public.

...operational policing strategies, including with respect to the enforcement of bail conditions, is a matter of some considerable public interest, and that this supports a finding that disclosure of information could reasonably be expected to "promote open discussion of public affairs, enhance Government accountability or contribute to positive and informed debate on issues of public importance" and that "inform the public about the operations" of the NSWPF.

(c) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to ensure effective oversight of the expenditure of public funds.

...effective oversight of the expenditure of public funds extends to understanding how the NSWPF are using their limited resources on different types of policing operation and if their risk assessment processes provide a proper basis for the ways in which resources are being deployed.

Excessive dedication of personnel to 'proactive policing' of young people, at the expense of investigation and prosecuting domestic violence offences, for example, may not be considered by the public to be an effective expenditure of public funds and would appropriately be the subject of public comment and scrutiny.

1. The Respondent submitted that disclosure of the information would not materially advance the public interest in ensuring the effective oversight of the expenditure of public funds.

(d) The information is personal information of the person to whom it is to be disclosed.

1. The Applicant submitted that Documents 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 appeared to relate directly to bail compliance checks conducted by employees of the Respondent on the Applicant, and that Document 11 had been identified by the Respondent as referring to the Applicant. The Applicant inferred that Documents 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14 and 15 must contain some reference to the Applicant in order to be caught by the access application.
2. Referring to the IPC Personal Information Guidelines, the Applicant submitted that:

...he has a significant interest in knowing the nature of the personal information held about him by the Respondent, including their opinions and discussions about him, a factor deserving considerable weight.

...the applicant's interest in accessing his own personal information is a compelling consideration favouring disclosure. In the respondent's submission, that consideration has been substantially met by the provision of the applicant's personal information in response to his application.

(e) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal or substantiate that an agency (or a member of an agency) has engaged in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct.

1. The Applicant submitted that the bail compliance checks, which were referred to in the Disputed Documents, were the subject of proceedings in the AHRC for unlawful race discrimination, and in the Supreme Court for unlawful trespass. The information sought therefore

... has the potential to reveal, substantiate or corroborate the improper or unlawful conduct alleged in that complaint and proceeding, or reveal further conduct of a similar nature.

1. The Applicant referred to the reports of the LECC annexed to Ms Sinclair's affidavits and the statistics of BOCSAR and the ABS in support of a submission that the Tribunal should find this consideration applicable to the withheld information contained in the Disputed Documents. The Applicant submitted:

The Tribunal does not need to decide whether any of the material establishes that employees of the Respondent did engage in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct. The Tribunal only need be satisfied that there are real and substantial grounds for believing that disclosure could substantiate conduct of that nature.

1. The Respondent submitted that it was not the Tribunal's role to determine the substantive merits of the Applicant's complaints regarding police actions, or whether the bail compliance checks were lawful. Referring to Barrett at [136], the Respondent submitted that the material would need to show a reasonable basis for such serious imputations as misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct. Further:

It is not the Tribunal's role to determine the substantive merits of the applicant's complaints regarding police actions or, more specifically, whether bail compliance checks are lawful: see, for example, Danis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 138 at [117]. Rather, the Tribunal is required to consider "the effect of disclosure" of the Disputed Information: Danis v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAP 23 at [66]. For the Tribunal to make a finding that the public interest consideration in (e) of the note to s 12(2) is engaged, it must be satisfied that disclosure of the Disputed Information could reasonably be expected to reveal or substantiate that the NSWPF (or a member of the NSWPF) has engaged in misconduct or unlawful conduct: EMC v University of Sydney [2021] NSWCATAD 234 at [207].

1. The Respondent acknowledged that disclosure of the information could be relevant to an assessment of the lawfulness of police strategies and the "applicant's particular concerns in that regard", but there was no basis for finding that the disclosure of the withheld information could "reasonably be expected to reveal" "misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct" on the part of Respondent or its officers.

1. I attach to these reasons for decision "Annexure B" to the Application for Review, which identifies each of the subject documents and the public interest considerations against disclosure (PICAD) claimed by the Respondent. Unless otherwise stated, the Respondent relied on those PICAD at the hearing.
2. As outlined above, the PICAD relied on by the Respondent in relation to the withheld information in the Disputed Documents, as a whole, were clauses 1(e), 1(f), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), 3(g). The Affidavit of DI Darcy addressed each of these considerations.
3. The Respondent submitted that the internal communications and other information within the Disputed Documents, in particular in documents 9, 13, 14 and 15, included police methodologies to be employed to address incidence of particular types of crime, the operational and resourcing needs of particular commands, assessments of risk, strategies relating to the imposition of bail conditions and enforcement orders, particular lines of inquiry, investigation and investigative methodologies. Several documents, including particularly Documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11, related specifically to bail enforcement.

(1)(e) - reveal a deliberation or consultation conducted, or an opinion, advice or recommendation given, in such a way as to prejudice a deliberative process of government or an agency.

(1)(f) - prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of the agency's functions.

1. The PICAD expressed at Clause 1(e) requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to do 2 things:

(1) reveals a deliberation or consultation conducted, or opinion, advice or recommendation given (the first step); and

(2) prejudice a deliberative process of government or an agency (the second step).

1. The Respondent identified the PICAD at 1(e) as being relevant to email communications in each of Documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, submitting that their disclosure would prima facie satisfy the first step as "they reveal deliberations and consultations conducted, and opinions, advice and recommendations given internally within the NSWPF". In relation to the second test, the Respondent submitted that:

disclosing email consultations between NSWPF officers would prejudice the ability of officers to share sensitive and valuable information to allow for the effective exercise of their duties and performance of their policing functions, in particular by email.

1. The respondent relied on the evidence of DI Darcy, who stated (amongst other things):

(1) officers engaging in internal deliberations and consultation do so with an expectation that their communications are confidential, and will not be disclosed;

(2) if internal deliberations and consultation of this nature were released... officers would be very reluctant to communicate in writing regarding these matters. Officers would likely limit their communications to non-sensitive matters, and would be inhibited in providing their full and frank views to colleagues...

(3) officers would generally be less inclined to commit their views to writing... This would reduce the amount of internal consultation and sharing of information that would occur, particularly having regard to the logistical barriers to officers having in-person interactions with each other.

1. The Respondent submitted that this PICAD should be accorded considerable weight, given "the importance of email communications as a means for officers to share sensitive and important information, in a timely manner, across different shifts and with different commands, in order to effectively perform their functions."
2. The Applicant submitted that if the Tribunal were to accept the Respondent's submissions, "almost all internal communications between police officers related to policing should be shielded from disclosure and the attendant scrutiny", which was inconsistent with the objects of the GIPA Act. The Applicant submitted that DI Darcy's evidence was "expressed at a high level of generality", and that a suggestion the Respondent's officers may take steps to circumvent the GIPA Act by having conversations orally instead of by email should not be accepted as weighing in the PICAD. Additionally, that if the deliberative process to which the information related had been finalised, this would undermine the relevance of the consideration and the weight to be given it.
3. The Respondent submitted that disclosure of the withheld information in Documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, 13, 14 and 15 would prejudice the effective exercise of the Respondent's investigative and law enforcement functions, identified at s 6 of the Police Act 1990 as including:

(a) services by way of prevention and detection of crime, and

(b) the protection of persons from injury or death, and property from damage, whether arising from criminal acts or in any other way, and

(c) the provision of essential services in emergencies, and

(d) any other service prescribed by the regulations.

1. The Respondent submitted that the disclosure of the following information could reasonably be expected to satisfy both clauses 1(f) and 2(b):

...information disclosing police methodologies to be employed to address incidence of particular types of crime, the operational and resourcing needs of particular commands, assessments of risk, and strategies relating to the imposition of bail conditions and enforcement orders.

...[Information revealing] particular lines of inquiry, investigation and investigative methodologies.

(2)(b) - prejudice the prevention, detection or investigation of a contravention or a possible contravention of the law or prejudice the enforcement of the law.

1. The Respondent identified withheld information in Documents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 as relevant to the PICAD at Clause 2(b), that the disclosure of such information would prejudice the prevention, detection or investigation of contraventions of the law, or prejudice enforcement of the law.
2. The Respondent referred the Tribunal to a number of cases which found that Clause 2(b) applied to information that might serve to disclose or confirm lawful police methods or procedures for preventing or detecting possible contraventions of the law: Desmond v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2003] NSWADT 231 at [17], RT v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2005] NSWADT 270 at [35]-[36], UC v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2005] NSWADT 272 at [32]-[33] and Campillo v Australian Customs Service [2005] AATA 1196 at [19]-[21]; and Miskelly v Secretary, Department of Education [2019] NSWCATAD 48. The Respondent also referred to the specific cases of Betzis v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2020] NSWCATAD 71 at [59] and Klaric v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2020] NSWCATAD 47 at [93] to [94] as examples of where the Tribunal made findings about the importance of not disclosing certain techniques and methodologies of the Respondent.
3. DI Darcy's evidence was to the effect that the withheld information, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to reveal police lines of inquiry, investigations and investigative methodologies and bail enforcement strategies. His evidence expressed the concerns such disclosure would have, and its impact of undermining and subverting investigations, by providing opportunity for the destruction or concealment of evidence, interference with witnesses and evasion resulting in an inability of the NSW Police to detect bail breaches. He also explained that the information disclosed certain bail enforcement methodologies that would not be widely known or understood by the public, and that Documents 14 and 15 contained warnings regarding particular individuals which, if disclosed, could put the safety of individual police officers at risk. I accept DI Darcy's evidence.
4. The Applicant's submissions were to the effect that the Respondent's reasons were too general to satisfy the Tribunal that Clause 2(b) should apply. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent had not identified the particular ongoing investigation or investigative methodologies which could be impacted by disclosure. Further, the Applicant was unable to ascertain why Documents 13, 14 and 15 could not be released with appropriate redactions, rather than being entirely withheld.

(3)(a) - reveal an individual's personal information;

(3)(b) - contravene an Information Privacy Principle under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 or a Health Privacy Principle under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002.

(3)(g) - in the case of the disclosure of personal information about a child--the disclosure of information that it would not be in the best interests of the child to have disclosed.

1. The Respondent submitted that personal information of an individual, or that would contravene a privacy principle, was contained in the withheld information in the Disputed Documents, particularly 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5, 9, 10,11,12, 13, 14 and 15.
2. DI Darcy's affidavit identified that:

(1) Documents 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 refer to a number of individuals in the context of discussions regarding targeted bail compliance checks, including individuals who were minors at the time the document was created.

(2) In Documents 4 and 5, the first passage redacted relates to an individual other than the applicant.

(3) Document 11 is an email that relates entirely to an individual that is not the applicant, although there is an incidental reference to the applicant's name.

(4) Document 12 is a document entitled "Reason for Bail Decision by Police Officer": this document relates entirely to an individual that is not the applicant.

(5) Document 13 is a transcript of an ERISP interview with a minor who is not the applicant.

(6) Documents 14 and 15 contains the names, pictures, contact details and other information of a number of individuals other than the applicant.

(7) Several of the individuals referred to within the Disputed Documents were minors at the time of the document's creation.

1. The Respondent submitted that the Tribunal's consideration of the withheld information would demonstrate the apparent relevance of Clause 3(a), specific application of s 18 of the PPIP Act in relation to Clause 3(b), and Clause 3(g).
2. Section 18 of the PPIP Act prohibits disclosure of personal information unless certain exceptions apply. The Respondent submitted that those exceptions would not apply, because:

a. The disclosure would be for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information has been collected, and it would be expected that the individuals concerned would object to its disclosure;

b. In circumstances where information supplied by members of the public to the NSWPF is, as a matter of both policy and practice, maintained confidentially, it could not be said that any of the concerned individuals would be aware, or would have been made aware, that their information would be disclosed in response to an application under the GIPA Act; and

c. The disclosure would not be necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of the individual concern.

1. The Respondent relied on the following passage in EHW v Department of Education [2022] NSWCATAD 140 at [169]- [170] in relation to the application of Clause 3(g):

"Clause 3(g) of the s 14 Table is concerned with the interests or more broadly, the rights, of the child in a generic sense and not in the context of the particular child to which the information relates: Medlyn v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 125 at [115]- [116]; Commissioner of Police v DYD [2020] NSWCATAP 224 at [61].

One factor that is to be given significant weight is a child's privacy rights, including in relation to "aspects of their conduct at school and observations about their parents' relationship breakdown": Mansfield v Department of Family and Community Services (NSW) [2014] NSWCATAD 43 at [67]. As submitted by the respondent, the Tribunal has noted that it is "difficult to see any circumstances in which the best interests of a child could be served by disclosure of their personal information in response to a GIPA Act application": citing Miskelly v Secretary Department of Education [2019] NSWCATAD 48 at [127]."

1. The Respondent referred to the Tribunal's findings in FGK v Legal Aid NSW [2021] NSWCATAD 308, where clause 3(g) applied because disclosure of information would be contrary to community expectations about protecting the privacy of children, and submitted that the Tribunal would be satisfied that:

... the unconditional disclosure under the GIPA Act of law enforcement information about minors other than the applicant would not be in the best interests of those individuals. More generally, on a systemic level, it would be entirely contrary to community expectations if information of this nature could be obtained under the GIPA Act. Clause 3(g) applies as a weighty consideration against disclosure.

1. I accept and agree with that submission.
2. The Applicant identified that it did not press for access to the following information of persons other than the Applicant: names (including nick-names, aliases, or abbreviations); signatures; dates of birth; home or work addresses; telephone numbers; email addresses; photos; or file or proceeding numbers for police, youth justice, court or other agency.
3. The Applicant submitted that it was not sufficient for the information to "relate to" another individual, or be "about" another individual, but rather had to identify the person or reasonably be expected to identify them. The Applicant submitted that:

The breadth of the withholding however appears to be more extensive than is necessary to prevent the disclosure of limited personal information which may identify, or could reasonably be expected to identify, a person other than the Applicant.

1. In reply, the Respondent submitted that it was necessary to withhold the relevant information in the Disputed Documents which were identified as personal information of other individuals, in order to "protect the identities of third parties". The Respondent further submitted that 'determinative' weight should be given to considerations against disclosure relevant to clauses 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g).

1. At the hearing, the parties each made general submissions on the public interest considerations for and against disclosure. At a confidential hearing, the Respondent took the Tribunal to each document and each redaction within each document to explain how those public interest considerations applied.
2. The Respondent submitted that the Disputed Documents constituted a discreet refusal to provide certain information in the context of the release of more than 1000 pages to the Applicant which were responsive to the access application. Whilst accepting that certain of the PICFD applied (as described above), the Respondent submitted that the withheld information "did little to advance this public interest".
3. The withheld information included email chains which were repeated across the Disputed Documents. Where I have considered the specific withheld information, and the exact same information is repeated in the same context, I do not repeat my considerations.
4. I accept and agree with the Respondent's submissions in relation to the relevance of the PICAD for each of the redactions, as relevant to each of the redactions. In my consideration of each redaction or piece of withheld information, I have identified which of the PICFD are relevant, considered the Applicant's submissions in relation to them, and afforded them weight accordingly. I have then considered what weight to afford each of the PICFD identified by the Respondent, after having viewed the withheld information and taken into consideration the Respondent's submissions regarding each of those PICAD. I have then conducted the balancing exercise required by s 13 and determined whether the PICFD are outweighed by the PICAD.

1. Document 1 is an email chain dated 25 August 21 with the subject "FW Targetted Bail Compliance Checks for [Location] PCT/Dets/GD's" between a Detective Senior Constable at [Location in Regional NSW] Criminal Investigation and an Intel Analyst at [Location in Regional NSW] PD. It contains three redaction boxes, although the Respondent noted that the second redaction box should be combined with the third redaction box.
2. I am satisfied that the PICFD of s 12(1) applies to each of the redactions and I give that consideration reasonable weight in respect of each of them. I also take into account the Applicant's personal interest in the information pursuant to s 55(2) of the GIPA Act, in favour of its disclosure.

1. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
2. The first redaction box is claimed by the Respondent as withheld on the basis of paragraphs 1(f) and 2(b) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
3. I am satisfied that the PICFD of examples (a) and (b) to s 12(2) apply to the first redaction box of Document 1 because it contains information about bail compliance checks which (for the reasons described above and detailed in the annexures to Ms Sinclair's affidavit) are a matter of public interest. I give those PICFD reasonable weight in relation to the withheld information. I do not agree that considerable or significant weight ought to be given to those public interest considerations for disclosure, where the public interest has already been engaged on these issues, and there is extensive evidence of this supplied by the Applicant, as referred to in the LECC reports, and the withheld information is not likely to advance that interest further.
4. I am not satisfied that the withheld information discloses any information regarding the expenditure of public funds or its effective oversight (example (c) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act). I am also not satisfied that the withheld information discloses any of the Applicant's personal information (example (d) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act).
5. I am not satisfied that the withheld information could reasonably be expected to reveal or substantiate that the Respondent or a police officer working for the Respondent engaged in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct, as it does not include sufficient information by which I could be satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for any such allegations against any particular individual, or that such allegations could possibly be substantiated on that information (example (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act).
6. I am satisfied that the disclosure of the information contained in the first redaction box of Document 1 could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of the agency's functions (cl 1(f) of the PICAD), and prejudice the prevention, detection or investigation of a contravention or a possible contravention of the law or prejudice the enforcement of the law (cl 2(b) of the PICAD). I accept the Respondent's submissions in relation to those PICAD as strongly relevant to the withheld information and give them each significant weight.
7. On balance, the PICAD outweigh the PICFD of the first redacted box in Document 1.

1. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
2. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
3. The second redaction box is claimed as withheld on the basis of paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act. The third redaction box is claimed as withheld on the basis of paragraphs 1(f), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and 3(g) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act. I will deal with both together because my review of the content of that information supports the Respondent's submission that they should be considered together.
4. I am satisfied that the PICFD of examples (a) and (b) to s 12(2) apply to the second and third redaction boxes of Document 1 because they contain information about bail compliance checks which are a matter of public interest. I give those PICFD reasonable weight in relation to the withheld information.
5. I am not satisfied that the withheld information discloses any information regarding the expenditure of public funds or its effective oversight (example (c) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act).
6. There is a single reference to the Applicant's name in the redacted information and I am therefore satisfied that the PICFD at example (d) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act is relevant, but I give this consideration limited weight. This is because there is no personal information other than his name included in the withheld information. It is unsurprising that the withheld information contains a reference to the Applicant's name when that was a search term used by the Respondent to respond to the access application, and a mere reference or inclusion of the Applicant's name cannot result in much weight being placed on that particular PICFD in those circumstances.
7. I am not satisfied that the withheld information could reasonably be expected to reveal or substantiate that the Respondent or a police officer working for the Respondent engaged in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct, as it does not include sufficient information by which I could be satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for any such allegations against any particular individual, or that such allegations could possibly be substantiated on that information (example (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act).
8. I am satisfied the PICAD at clauses 1(e), 1(f), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) apply to the withheld information. On my review, I give those considerations each significant weight.
9. The PICAD strongly outweigh the PICFD of the second and third redaction boxes in Document 1.

1. The redacted box in Document 2 is the same as the second and third redaction boxes in Document 1.

1. The redacted box in Document 3 is the same as the second and third redaction boxes in Document 1.

1. Document 4 is an email chain dated 29 June 2022, with the subject line containing "Public Interest Advocacy centre Ltd - letter from Grace Cooley solicitor - Bail compliance checks", and then naming the Applicant and his brother. There are four separate redaction boxes in the most recent email from Peter Atkins to District Commander Brett Smith. On my review of the withheld information, the third and fourth redaction boxes should be combined as they are artificially and unnecessarily separated in the email chain and are a continuation of the same withheld content.
2. The disclosed parts of the email chain reveal an inquiry by the Respondent's District Commander as to facts alleged in a letter sent by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre to the Respondent, regarding bail compliance checks on the Applicant and his brother. Mr Atkins, an employee of the Respondent, states that he has reviewed a particular file, provides information of 147 "occurrence only event which appear to be bail compliance checks in 2022", and then provides specific detail regarding the Applicant's criminal charges, bail and bail breaches.
3. I am satisfied that the PICFD of s 12(1) applies to each of the redactions and I give that consideration reasonable weight in respect of each of them. I also take into account the Applicant's personal interest in the information pursuant to s 55(2) of the GIPA Act, in favour of its disclosure.
4. I am also satisfied that the PICFD of examples (a) and (b) to s 12(2) apply to each of the redactions because the withheld information consists of the Respondent's internal emails which could reasonably be expected to be relevant to a public interest in its operation, both internally and externally. I give those PICFD reasonable weight in relation to the particular withheld information.

1. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
2. The first redaction box is claimed by the Respondent as withheld on the basis of paragraphs 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
3. I am not satisfied that the PICFD at examples (c), (d) or (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act have any relevance to the withheld information.
4. I am satisfied that the PICAD at clauses 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act are relevant and I give those considerations significant weight, as the withheld information relates entirely to the personal information of an individual who is not the Applicant.
5. Taking into consideration the PICFD (identified at [114] and [115] above), I find that the PICAD outweigh those in favour of the disclosure.

1. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
2. The second redaction box is claimed by the Respondent as withheld on the basis of paragraphs 1(f) and 2(b) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
3. I am not satisfied that the PICFD at examples (c), (d) or (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act have any relevance to the withheld information.
4. I am satisfied that the PICAD at clauses 1(f) and 2(b) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act are relevant and, on the basis of the submissions made by the Respondent, I give those considerations significant weight.
5. Taking into consideration the PICFD (identified at [114] and [115] above), I find that the PICAD outweigh those in favour of the disclosure.

1. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
2. The third and fourth redaction boxes are claimed by the Respondent as withheld on the basis of paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
3. I am not satisfied that the PICFD at examples (c), (d) or (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act have any relevance to the withheld information.
4. I am satisfied that the PICAD at clauses 1(e) and 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act are relevant to the withheld information and, on the basis of the submissions made by the Respondent, I give those considerations significant weight.
5. Taking into consideration the PICFD (identified at [114] and [115] above), I find that the PICAD outweigh those in favour of the disclosure.

1. Document 5 contains the same email chain as in Document 4, with an addition email disclosed above the most recent in Document 4. The redacted boxes in Document 5 are the same as the redacted boxes in Document 4.

1. Document 6 is an email chain dated 16 March 2023 with the Applicant's name as the subject line, between various police officers at [Location in Regional NSW] District.
2. There are five redaction boxes withheld by the Respondent in Document 6. On my review of the withheld information, the fourth and fifth redaction boxes should be combined as they are artificially and unnecessarily separated in the email chain and are a continuation of the same withheld content.
3. The disclosed sections of the email chain reveal arrangements being discussed for bail terms, and issues regarding communication of the officers' concerns regarding the Applicant's charges and bail terms, to the prosecutors and Court. The withheld sections of the email chain did not refer to the Applicant or his personal information, except where I have otherwise identified.
4. I am satisfied that the PICFD of s 12(1) applies to each of the redactions and I give that consideration reasonable weight in respect of each of them. I also take into account the Applicant's personal interest in the information pursuant to s 55(2) of the GIPA Act, in favour of its disclosure.
5. I am also satisfied that the PICFD of examples (a) and (b) to s 12(2) apply to each of the redactions because the withheld information consists of the Respondent's internal emails which could reasonably be expected to be relevant to a public interest in its operation, both internally and externally. I give those PICFD reasonable weight in relation to the particular withheld information.
6. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
7. I find this adds further weight to the Tribunal's consideration of the PICAD at clauses 1(e) and 1(f).
8. The Respondent withheld each of the redaction boxes in Document 6 on the basis of clauses 1(e) and 1(f) of the table to s 14 of the GIPA Act. I agree with the Respondent's submissions and therefore find that the weight to be afforded to those public interest considerations, in relation to each of the redactions in Document 6, to be highly significant.
9. I note here that the Respondent's submission in relation to these PICAD was that 'determinative' weight should be afforded by the Tribunal to them. In conducting the balancing exercise required by s 13 of the GIPA Act, the considerations in the table to s 14 cannot be 'determinative' and I have not afforded 'determinative' weight (in terms or in meaning) to any single factor I have considered in these circumstances.

1. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
2. The first redaction box is claimed by the Respondent as withheld on the basis of paragraph 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act. On my review of this redaction box, I am unsure why clause 1(e) was not also claimed by the Respondent, as it is apparent from the content that it would also be highly applicable.
3. I am not satisfied that the PICFD at examples (c), (d) or (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act have any relevance to the withheld information.
4. I am satisfied that the PICAD at clause 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act are relevant and, on the basis of the submissions made by the Respondent, I give that consideration significant weight.
5. Taking into consideration the PICFD (identified at [135] and [136]), and my findings at [138] and [139], I find that the significance of the PICAD outweighs those considerations in favour of the disclosure.

1. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
2. The second redaction box is claimed by the Respondent as withheld on the basis of paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
3. I am not satisfied that the PICFD at examples (c), (d) or (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act have any relevance to the withheld information.
4. I am satisfied that the PICAD at clauses 1(e) and 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act are relevant and, on the basis of the submissions made by the Respondent, I give those considerations significant weight.
5. Taking into consideration the PICFD (identified at [135] and [136]), and my findings at [138] and [139], I find that the significance of the PICAD outweighs those considerations in favour of the disclosure.

1. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
2. The third redaction box is claimed by the Respondent as withheld on the basis of paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
3. I am satisfied that the PICFD at example (d) of s 12(2) of the GIPA Act applies because this redaction includes the Applicant's personal information. I give that consideration reasonable weight. I am not satisfied that the PICFD at examples (c) or (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act have any relevance to the withheld information.
4. I am satisfied that the PICAD at clauses 1(e) and 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act are relevant and, on the basis of the submissions made by the Respondent, I give those considerations significant weight.
5. Taking into consideration the PICFD (identified at [135] and [136]), and my findings at [138] and [139], I find that the significance of the PICAD outweighs those considerations in favour of the disclosure.

1. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
2. The fourth and fifth redaction boxes are claimed by the Respondent as withheld on the basis of paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
3. I am not satisfied that the PICFD at examples (c), (d) or (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act have any relevance to the withheld information.
4. I am satisfied that the PICAD at clauses 1(e) and 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act are relevant and, on the basis of the submissions made by the Respondent, I give those considerations significant weight.
5. Taking into consideration the PICFD (identified at [135] and [136]), and my findings at [138] and [139], I find that the significance of the PICAD outweighs those considerations in favour of the disclosure.

1. Document 7 is an email chain dated 14 March 2023 with the Applicant's name as the subject line, between various police officers at [Location in Regional NSW] District and the Police Prosecution Command.
2. The first three redaction boxes and last three redacted boxes are the same as redaction boxes 3, 4, and 5 of Document 6.
3. Redaction boxes 4 and 5 in Document 7 are the same as redaction boxes 1 and 2 of Document 6.

1. Document 8 is an email chain dated 15 May 2023 between employees of the Respondent, with the subject line identifying the Applicant's mother and "Request for cessation of bail checks". There is one small section of the document redacted, withheld by the Respondent on the basis of clauses 1(e) and 1(f) of the table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
2. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
3. I am satisfied that the PICFD of s 12(1) applies to the redaction in Document 8 and I give that consideration reasonable weight. I also take into account the Applicant's personal interest in the information pursuant to s 55(2) of the GIPA Act, in favour of its disclosure.
4. I am not satisfied that the PICFD of examples (a), (b), (c) or (e) to s 12(2) apply to the withheld information. I am, however, satisfied that (d) applies as the withheld information is personal information of the Applicant. I give that consideration reasonable weight.
5. I agree that clause 1(e) of the table to s 14 of the GIPA Act applies and I give that consideration significant weight. I agree that clause 1(f) of the table to s 14 of the GIPA Act applies, but I give that consideration very limited weight as I do not think disclosure of the particular withheld information would have any significant impact on the ability of police officers to be able to be 'frank' in their communications, in the context of the effective exercise of the Respondent's functions.
6. On balance, I find the significance of the PICAD outweighs the PICFD identified in relation to the withheld information in Document 8.

1. Document 9 is an email chain dated 28 July 2023 between police officers, with the subject "Request for assistance to [Location in Regional NSW] and Chifley PDs". The Applicant's name is disclosed in the open material. The document contains two redaction boxes.
2. I am satisfied that the PICFD of s 12(1) applies to each of the redactions and I give that consideration reasonable weight in respect of each of them. I also take into account the Applicant's personal interest in the information pursuant to s 55(2) of the GIPA Act, in favour of its disclosure.
3. I am satisfied that the PICFD of examples (a) and (b) to s 12(2) apply to each of the redactions because the withheld information could reasonably be expected to be relevant to a public interest in the Respondent's operations, and contribute to discussions on issues of public importance, specifically crime in the region. I give those PICFD reasonable weight.
4. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
5. On the basis that the Applicant did not press for access to the names of other individuals, I have excluded consideration of that withheld information from my assessment.

1. The first redaction box of Document 9 is claimed by the Respondent as withheld on the basis of clauses 1(f), 3(a), 3(b), 3(g) of the table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
2. I am not satisfied that the PICFD at examples (c), (d) or (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act have any relevance to the withheld information.
3. I am satisfied that the PICAD at clauses 1(f), 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act are relevant and, on the basis of the submissions made by the Respondent, I give those considerations significant weight.
4. Taking into consideration the PICFD (identified at [171] and [172] above) I find that the PICAD outweigh those considerations in favour of the disclosure.

1. The second redaction box of Document 9 is withheld by the Respondent on the basis of clauses 1(f), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), 3(g) of the table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
2. I am satisfied that the PICFD at example (d) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act applies on the basis that the Applicant's name is mentioned in this redaction box, and I give that consideration reasonable weight. I am not satisfied that the PICFD at examples (c) or (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act are relevant.
3. I am satisfied that clauses 1(f), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), 3(g) of the table to s 14 of the GIPA Act are relevant considerations and I give each of those considerations significant weight.
4. Taking into consideration the PICFD (identified at [171] and [172] above) I find that the PICAD outweigh those considerations in favour of the disclosure.

1. Document 10 is an email chain dated 2 August 2023 between officers of the Respondent with the subject "Sergeants inquiries". There are six redaction boxes withheld by the Respondent. On the basis of their content and the likelihood that the redactions were separated only because the redaction software can redact boxes (and not irregular shapes), the third and fourth redaction boxes should be considered together, and the fifth and sixth redaction boxes should be considered together.
2. The email chain contains discussion about multiple different issues, only some of which are relevant to the access application. The Respondent's production of non-relevant parts of the email is explained by them being part of the chain which was captured by the access application.
3. I am satisfied that the PICFD of s 12(1) applies to each of the redactions and I give that consideration reasonable weight in respect of each of them. I also take into account the Applicant's personal interest in the information pursuant to s 55(2) of the GIPA Act, in favour of its disclosure.

1. The first and second redaction boxes name 6 children, and make no reference to the Applicant (or his brother). The Respondent withheld those names on the basis of clauses 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) of the table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
2. On the basis that the Applicant did not press for access to the names of other individuals, there is no need for the Tribunal to conduct the balancing exercise and determine whether the withheld information in the first and second redaction boxes ought to be released.

1. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
2. The Respondent submitted that the information contained in the third through sixth redaction boxes was not relevant to the Applicant's access application. Nevertheless, because it was caught by the search terms used, it was disclosable unless there was an overriding public interest against its disclosure. The Respondent relied on clauses 1(f) and 2(b) to the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act as the relevant PICAD for the withheld information.
3. On my review of the withheld information I agree that neither of the third, fourth, fifth or sixth redaction boxes' withheld information was relevant to the Applicant's request for access to information. It could have been withheld by the Respondent and deleted from the document pursuant to s 74 of the GIPA Act on that basis. On the basis, however, that access was pressed by the Applicant, I give reasonable weight to the considerations in favour of disclosure at s 12(1) of the GIPA Act, and limited weight to the Applicant's personal interest pursuant to s 55(2) of the GIPA Act. I am satisfied that the PICFD examples at (a) and (b) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act are relevant and I give those considerations reasonable weight as the withheld information concerns general police methodology which may be of public interest. I am not satisfied that the examples at (c), (d) or (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act apply.
4. I am satisfied that clauses 1(f) and 2(b) of the table to s 14 of the GIPA Act are relevant to the withheld information in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth redaction boxes, and I give those considerations each significant weight on the basis that they each disclose police methodology and, in relation to third and fourth redaction boxes, (unrelated) ongoing investigations.
5. Taking into account the PICFD identified above at [185] above, I find the PICAD outweigh those in favour of disclosure of the withheld information.

1. Document 11 is an email dated 10 October 2023 between two officers of the [Location in Regional NSW] Police District. The subject line is redacted (first redaction box) and the majority of the body of the email is also redacted (second redaction box). The Respondent submitted that the withheld information "relates entirely to an individual that is not the applicant, although there is an incidental reference to the applicant's name".
2. The first redaction box is claimed by the Respondent as withheld on the basis of paragraphs 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act. The second redaction box is claimed by the Respondent as withheld on the basis of paragraphs 1(e), 1(f), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) of the table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
3. On the basis that the Applicant did not press for access to the names of other individuals, there is no need for the Tribunal to conduct the balancing exercise and determine whether the withheld information ought to be released in relation to the first redaction box.
4. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION ]
5. On my review of the withheld information, I accept the Respondent's submission that it relates entirely to another (unrelated) individual, and was clearly caught by the access application because of a passing reference to the Applicant's name. Whilst the Applicant did not press for certain categories of personal information of other individuals (discussed at [84] above), the withheld information in the second redaction box goes well beyond those categories. In my view, it could have been withheld by the Respondent on the basis of relevance, pursuant to s 74 of the GIPA Act. On the basis that the Applicant, nonetheless, pressed for access to the withheld information, I will consider it in the context of the balancing exercise required by s 13 of the GIPA Act.
6. The second redaction box is claimed as withheld on the basis of paragraphs 1(e), 1(f), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and 3(g) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
7. I am satisfied that the PICFD of s 12(1) applies to the second redaction box and I give that consideration reasonable weight. I also take into account the Applicant's personal interest in the information pursuant to s 55(2) of the GIPA Act, in favour of its disclosure.
8. I am satisfied that the PICFD of examples (a) and (b) to s 12(2) apply to the withheld information because it contains information about bail compliance which are, for the reasons discussed above, a matter of public interest. I give those PICFD reasonable weight in relation to the withheld information.
9. I am not satisfied that the PICFD at examples (c) or (e) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act have any relevance to the withheld information.
10. There is a passing reference to the Applicant's name in the redacted information and I am therefore satisfied that the PICFD at example (d) to s 12(2) of the GIPA Act is relevant, but I give this consideration limited weight, for the same reasons discussed above at [106].
11. I am satisfied the PICAD at clauses 1(e), 1(f), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) apply to the withheld information. On my review, I give those considerations each significant weight.
12. The PICAD strongly outweigh the PICFD of the second redaction box in Document 11.

1. Document 12 is a document entitled "Reason for Bail Decision by Police Officer". The Respondent submitted that this document related entirely to an individual that is not the Applicant. The Applicant submitted that it was "difficult to determine the basis upon which it has been included in the materials provided".
2. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION ]
3. Document 12 was withheld by the Respondent on the basis of paragraphs 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
4. On my review of the withheld information, I accept the Respondent's submission that this document relates entirely to another (unrelated) individual and is, as the document describes and the Respondent submits, the reasons for a bail decision in relation to that individual. In my view, the document (including, but not limited to, the redacted parts of the document) is not relevant and could be withheld on that basis. On the basis, however, that access was pressed by the Applicant, I have considered the withheld information in accordance with the balancing exercise required by s 13 of the GIPA Act.
5. Whilst I am satisfied that the PICFD of s 12(1) applies to Document 12, in circumstances where there is no apparent relevance to the Applicant or his access application, I give that consideration very limited weight. I also take into account the Applicant's personal interest in the information pursuant to s 55(2) of the GIPA Act, in favour of its disclosure, but for the same reasons, give that consideration very limited weight.
6. I am satisfied that the PICFD of examples (a) and (b) to s 12(2) apply to the withheld information because it contains information about the reasons for a bail decision which may be of some general public interest. I give those PICFD limited weight in the circumstances. I am not satisfied that any other PICFD have any relevance to the withheld information.
7. I am satisfied the PICAD at clauses 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) apply to the withheld information. On my review, I give those considerations each significant weight.
8. The PICAD strongly outweigh the PICFD for the withheld information in Document 12.

1. Document 13 was wholly withheld by the Respondent on the basis of paragraphs 2(b), 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act. As described by the Respondent, Document 13 is a transcript of a recorded interview by the police of a young person, who is not the Applicant.
2. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
3. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
4. I am satisfied that the PICFD of s 12(1) applies to Document 13 and I give that consideration reasonable weight. I also take into account the Applicant's personal interest in the information pursuant to s 55(2) of the GIPA Act, in favour of its disclosure.
5. I am satisfied that the PICFD of examples (a) and (b) to s 12(2) apply and I give those considerations reasonable weight.
6. I am satisfied the PICAD at clauses 2(b), 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) apply to the withheld information. On my review, I give those considerations significant weight.
7. The PICAD outweigh the PICFD for the withheld information for Document 13.

1. Documents 14 and 15 are described as "Intelligence Packages" and are submitted by the Respondent to contain the names, pictures, contact details and other information of a number of individuals other than the applicant.
2. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
3. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
4. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
5. I am satisfied that the PICFD of s 12(1) applies to Documents 14 and 15 and I give that consideration reasonable weight for each document. I also take into account the Applicant's personal interest in the information pursuant to s 55(2) of the GIPA Act, in favour of their disclosure.
6. I am satisfied that the PICFD of examples (a) and (b) to s 12(2) apply and I give those considerations reasonable weight.
7. I am satisfied the PICAD at clauses 1(f), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) apply to the withheld information. On my review, I give the considerations at clauses 3(a), 3(b) and 3(g) significant weight, and I give highly significant weight to the considerations at clauses 1(f) and 2(b) because of the nature and content of the information contained in Documents 14 and 15 and the impact its disclosure would have on the Respondent.
8. On balance, the PICAD outweigh the PICFD for the withheld information for Documents 14 and 15.

1. I have found in relation to all of the withheld information that the public interests against disclosure outweigh the public interests in favour of disclosure.
2. The correct and preferable decision is therefore to affirm the Respondent's reviewable decision.

(1) The Respondent's reviewable decision is affirmed.

(2) Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the publication or broadcast of the name of the Applicant is prohibited.

(3) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the publication of evidence or submissions given to or before the Tribunal containing the name of the Applicant or other young persons is prohibited.

(4) Pursuant to ss 64(1)(c),(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and s 107(2) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, the disclosure or publication of evidence and submissions received by Tribunal during the Confidential Hearing, and the disclosure or publication of that evidence or of matters contained in confidential documents lodged with the Tribunal, is prohibited. This includes paragraphs 94, 101, 102, 116, 121, 126, 137, 141, 146, 151, 156, 165, 173, 188, 196, 206, 214, 215, 221, 222, 223 of these reasons for decision.

Public Interest Considerations Against Disclosure Claimed by the Agency

Emails between NSW Police employees, titled 'Targetted Bail Compliance Checks for [Location] PCT/Dets/GD's. [SEC=OFFICIAL]'

Emails between NSW Police employees, titled 'Targetted Bail Compliance Checks for [Location] PCT/Dets/GD's. [SEC=OFFICIAL]'

Emails between NSW Police employees, titled 'Targetted Bail Compliance Checks for [Location] PCT/Dets/GD's. [SEC=OFFICIAL]'

Emails between NSW Police employees, titled [redacted] : Public Interest Advocacy Centre Ltd - Letter from [redacted] solicitor - Bail compliance checks - [GXG] and [redacted] [redacted] [SEC=OFFICIAL]'

Emails between NSW Police employees, titled [redacted] : Public Interest Advocacy Centre Ltd - Letter from [redacted] solicitor - Bail compliance checks - [GXG] and [redacted] [redacted] [SEC=OFFICIAL]'

Emails between NSW Police employees, titled [GXG] [SEC=OFFICIAL]'

Emails between NSW Police employees, titled 'D/2023/528505 [Redacted] I Request for cessation of bail checks'

Emails between NSW Police employees, titled 'Request for assistance to [Location in Regional NSW] and Chifley PDs. [SEC=OFFICIAL: Sensitive]'

employees, titled 'FW: Sergeants enquiries. [SEC=OFFICIAL, ACCESS=Legal-Privilege]'

Email between NSW Police employees, Shannon McGann to Glenn Griffith, titled redacted.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.