1. Mr Julian Knight is a high security prisoner serving lengthy sentences of imprisonment. He has over the years been involved in a number of freedom of information proceedings in at VCAT and its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Victoria (AAT).
2. In March 2015, he made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (the Department) seeking a copy of a High Intensity Violence Intervention Program Completion Report dated 23 September 2014 (the Report) relating to his completion of the High Intensity Violence Intervention Program (the Program) at Port Phillip Prison.
3. In April 2015, the Department granted partial access to page 1 of the 11 page Report and refused access to the remaining 10 pages, under sections 30(1), 31(1)(a), 33(1) and 38 of the FOI Act.
4. Mr Knight sought review of that decision by the Freedom of Information Commissioner, (Commissioner), who refused access to the entire Report, under section 38 of the FOI Act.
5. Mr Knight is declared a vexatious litigant under section 29 of the Vexatious Proceedings Suppression Act 2014 (Vic). As he wished to seek review of the Commissioner's decision, he applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria for leave to do so. In December 2016, the Court granted him that leave.
6. In Knight v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation,[1] Keogh J decided Mr Knight's desired VCAT application was not vexatious, citing three potential avenues for its release at least in part.
7. Keogh J observed that if the report is a document to which section 104ZZA of the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) (Corrections Act) applies, while section 38 of the FOI Act would appear to result in the Report being exempt, that would not necessarily be the end of the matter.
8. First, section 104ZZA was described as being subject to authorisation to disclose under section 104ZY of the Corrections Act.[2]
9. Second, there may be the possibility that a redacted version of the Report could be released employing section 25 of the FOI Act such that the report was not exempt.
10. Third, given material that Mr Knight had provided to the Court, there was the prospect that the public interest override may be invoked.
11. In May 2017, Mr Knight sought review by VCAT of the Commissioner's refusal under section 50(1)(b) of the FOI Act.[3]
12. It is unusual to record that a reviewable decision made in 2017 reached final VCAT hearing in September 2025. Mr Knight's evidence as to the passage of time is set out below.
13. Mr Knight, a highly experienced self represented litigant, represented himself. Counsel represented the Department.
14. Mr Alfie Olivia, Director, Forensic Intervention Services, Department of Justice and Community Safety, the author of the Report, gave evidence.
15. The Department submitted that VCAT should affirm the Commissioner's decision because the Report is exempt from release under the following sections of the FOI Act:

a) 31(1)(a) - law-enforcement documents; > > b) 33(1) - personal affairs; and > > c) 38 - documents to which secrecy provisions apply (in conjunction with sections 104ZZA and 104ZX of the Corrections Act.

16. Mr Knight gave evidence that he had read and discussed the Report with Mr Olivia (as he had) and was provided two other opportunities to read it and submitted that he should be provided with a copy of the Report.
17. During the VCAT hearing, Mr Olivia offered to meet with Mr Knight for another discussion concerning the Report and another opportunity for Mr Knight to read it.
18. At the end of the hearing, I reserved my decision and ordered that Mr Knight may provide to VCAT and to the Department a further statement in this proceeding following the anticipated meeting with Mr Olivia or advise that no further statement will be provided.
19. By letter dated 22 September 2025, Mr Knight advised that he had met with Mr Olivia and had again read the Report. He continued to seek a copy. Mr Knight noted that the Report is over 10 years old and, in his view, the relevance of many of the comments and recommendations have been overtaken by events. He repeated his submission regarding having to recall from memory a substantial amount of information and submitted that if VCAT is ultimately of a view that partial access is warranted, the list of recommendations should be included as part of that access.

1. Under section 13 of the FOI Act, Mr Knight has the right to obtain documents, unless a document is wholly or in part an exempt document.
2. Section 3 says the FOI Act's object is to extend as far as possible the right of the community to access information in the possession of the Government of Victoria and other bodies constituted under the law of Victoria for public purposes and that any discretions conferred by the FOI Act shall be exercised as far as possible to facilitate and promote, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, the disclosure of information.
3. Section 16 of the FOI Act requires agencies to administer the FOI Act with a view to making the maximum amount of information promptly and inexpensively available to the public.
4. The above is subject to exemptions from release, including the exemptions relevant here.
5. The Department bears the onus of satisfying VCAT that the documents in dispute are exempt from disclosure.
6. Section 31(1)(a) says that a document is an exempt document if its disclosure under the FOI Act would, or would be reasonably likely to prejudice the investigation of a breach or possible breach of the law or prejudice the enforcement or proper administration of the law in a particular instance.
7. Section 33(1) says that a document is an exempt document if its disclosure under the Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information relating to the personal affairs of any person.
8. Section 38 is described below.
9. Section 25 of the FOI Act applies here in that it was 'practicable' to grant access to a copy of the report with deletions such that the Report was no longer an exempt document, if Mr Knight wanted such a copy, that copy is to be provided.
10. Section 50(4) of the FOI Act says:

On the hearing of an application for review the Tribunal shall have, in addition to any other power, the same powers as an agency or a Minister in respect of a request, including power to decide that access should be granted to an exempt document (not being a document referred to in section 28, section 29A, section 31(3), section 31A, or in section 33) where the Tribunal is of opinion that the public interest requires that access to the document should be granted under this Act.

1. The High Court of Australia has said VCAT must be satisfied, with there being a high threshold, that the public interest requires release of the document: see Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice.[4]

Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (the Charter)

1. If the words of the FOI Act are capable of more than one meaning, s 32(1) of the Charter requires VCAT to give the words of the statute the meaning which best accords with the right to freedom of expression under s 15 of the Charter so far as it is possible to do so consistently with the purpose of the FOI Act.

1. VCAT has previously held that the right to freedom of expression in s 15(2) of the Charter, in particular the right to seek and receive information and ideas, includes a positive right to access information held by the government.

1. Mr Olivia provided a witness statement and gave oral evidence at the VCAT hearing. The Department had provided the Tribunal on a confidential basis with a copy of the Report.
2. Mr Knight provided a witness statement and gave evidence at the VCAT hearing.
3. The bulk of the evidence related to the claimed exemption under section 31(1)(a).
4. In summary, Mr Olivia's evidence included his opinion that release of the Report, and the creation of a precedent that may lead to other prisoners obtaining such reports, would, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the proper administration of the Corrections Act generally and, in particular, in relation to Mr Knight.
5. His view was access to such reports may give prisoners additional insights into clinicians' methods which they could employ to subvert the effectiveness of assessments made in context of the Program and impede the ability of clinicians to provide full and frank reports and may result in detrimental effects for the prisoners the subject of the reports.
6. As I have found that section 38 applies, and so it is not necessary to consider whether section 31(1)(a) applies, I have not here recorded much of the evidence related to that exemption.
7. That said, I summarise some of the content of Mr Knight's witness statement dated 31 October 2024. I have no reason to doubt his evidence.
8. Sentenced to life imprisonment in 1998, during the following years in custody, which continue, Mr Knight gave evidence that he has received copies of all his psychiatric and psychological reports except for some produced for the Adult Parole Board of Victoria (the Board).
9. He described receiving various reports (following requests under the FOI Act) by distinguished psychologists and psychiatrists who have worked in the prison system over the years.
10. Mr Knight set out a detailed history of his attempts to participate in programs intended to assist prisoners assessed as violent to work towards rehabilitation (my description). This included litigation in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking orders that Corrections Victoria allow him to participate.

1. In 2023, he initiated a second Supreme Court proceeding seeking to be admitted to the Program. Soon after Corrections Victoria was served with Mr Knight's application to the Court, he was advised he would be enrolled in the next program conducted at the prison, which started on 18 March 2013.
2. With the Adult Parole Board in previous years refusing to grant Mr Knight parole, in April 2014 the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Act 2014 (Vic) removed Mr Knight's eligibility for parole.
3. Mr Olivia finished the Report on 27 September 2014. Mr Knight's witness statement said, 'Following receipt of the VIP program completion report the Adult Parole Board sent me a printout that stated, 'previous decision to stand'.
4. Mr Knight described the years of delay in this matter coming to hearing at VCAT in part due to his pursuing of other proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, delay at VCAT, delay because of the pandemic and with him writing to VCAT asking when this matter would progress, VCAT making orders in September 2024 setting out further steps, which led to the hearing on 5 September 2025.
5. Mr Knight is critical of the effectiveness of the Program in reducing reoffending, in part based on his observations of the experiences of other prisoners who participated in the Program, some who were released, breached parole conditions or reoffended and were returned to prison, and provided his view that completion or otherwise of the program has no bearing on decisions by the Board.
6. Mr Knight attached five expert reports concerning him and other related documents.

1. The Report is exempt from release under section 38 of the FOI Act, in conjunction with Part E of the Corrections Act, which prohibits the disclosure of such information except in certain circumstances.
2. Section 38 of the FOI Act says:

A document is an exempt document if there is in force an enactment applying specifically to information of a kind contained in the document and prohibiting persons referred to in the enactment from disclosing information of that kind, whether the prohibition is absolute or is subject to exceptions or qualifications.

1. Section 104ZZA of the Corrections Act says that a person who is or has been a relevant person must not use or disclose 'personal or confidential information' except in certain specified circumstances.

1. Section 104ZX of the Corrections Act relevantly says:

personal or confidential information includes the following -

...

(c) information -

(i) that identifies any person or discloses his or her address or location or a journey made by the person; or

(ii) from which any person's identity, address or location can reasonably be determined;

(d) information given to the Adult Parole Board that is not disclosed in a decision of the Board or in any reasons given by the Board for a decision of the Board;

...

(h) information concerning procedures or plans to be adopted or followed in a prison in the event of an emergency;

(i) information concerning the management of prisons;

1. Concerning personal or confidential information as including (at (d)), information given to the Board that is not disclosed in a decision of the Board or in any reasons given by the Board for a decision by the Board, Mr Olivia gave evidence that the Board has access to the Report.
2. He also gave evidence that a review of the Department's records show that the Board considered the Report in April 2015 and the information in the Report has not been disclosed in a decision of the Board or in any reasons given by the Board.
3. Mr Knight did not dispute the Department's position that the information in the Report is not disclosed in any decision or reasons for decision by the Board.
4. Rather, he submitted that if this basis for exemption under section 38 was accepted, it provides the Department with an avenue to achieve broad exemption of documents by providing them to the Board, which he submitted should not be permitted to eventuate.
5. As the Department submitted, there is also information in the Report that comes within the definition of personal or confidential information as it is information:

(a) that identifies a person (including the names of a correctional officer and facilitators and the name and signature of the clinician as well as other third parties) (see meaning (c) of the definition at section 104ZX) of the Corrections Act; and

(b) concerning the management of prisons (e.g. the HIVIP is a program specifically designed to reduce re-offending and forms part of the management of prisons and people in custody) (see meaning (i) of the definition at section 104ZX) of the Corrections Act.

1. Returning to meaning (d), the Department submitted there is no intention to inappropriately create some form of broad avenue of exemption in claiming the exemption in this case. The Report is an appropriate one to go to the Board. In broad terms it was submitted that the Department's responsibilities include not abusing the provision by inappropriately providing documents to the Board, only motivated by claiming exemption under section 38.
2. Returning to section 38, the now repealed section 30 of the Corrections Act, the predecessor to section 104ZZA, has on multiple occasions, including in a number of cases between 1994 and 2011 involving Mr Knight, been found by VCAT to be a specific provision for the purposes of section 38, and so section 38 exempted documents in dispute.
3. In Knight v Department of Justice (1994),[5] as the Department submitted, the AAT found section 30 of the Corrections Act to be a secrecy provision for the purposes of section 38 and that it applied to exempt in full documents in a litigation file and prison classification file concerning Mr Knight.
4. Galvin DP in discussing section 38 observed that the 'particular enactment' must be expressed so as to relate specifically to the relevant information. He noted a previous VCAT decision where that degree of specificity was not achieved and so section 38 did not apply. However, section 30 was then amended to achieve that specificity.[6]
5. In Knight v CORE,[7] VCAT found that the prison staff roster was a document to which section 30 of the then Corrections Act applied and so also a document to which section 38 applied.
6. VCAT noted that section 30(2) of the Corrections Act said:

A person who holds or has held a position must not, except to the extent necessary to perform official duties powers or functions of that position, record, disclose, communicate or make use of confidential information.

1. Section 30(1) of the Corrections Act defined "confidential information" as meaning a number of kinds of information including, relevantly:

Information concerning the management of, or the operation of the security measures in, or in relation to, a prison; ...

1. VCAT noted that section 30(2) of the Corrections Act has been held by the Tribunal to be an enactment covered by section 38 of the FOI Act; for example, in re Brygel and Department of Justice (unreported, AAT 17 July 1996).
2. VCAT arrived at the same result concerning various documents in Knight v Department of Justice[8] (Tier 2B Clinical Assessment - Special Assessment and Treatment Plan' report dated 1 October 2009) and Knight v Department of Justice[9]. A number of VCAT decisions concerning other prisoners arrived at the same conclusion.
3. The Supreme Court of Victoria arrived at the same conclusion in Knight v Corrections Victoria.[10] Bell J found that the then provision covered 'access to government held documents about the prison system'. This extended to prisoners' access to information about themselves and their imprisonment kept on the prisoner intelligence information system, although the provision was not intended to operate to exclude all such access.
4. Turning to the current section 104ZZA, in Sloan v Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety,[11] VCAT said:

I am also satisfied ... that the names of the prisoners threatened in the notes and handwriting from which the identity of the author(s) could be ascertained are properly characterised as personal or confidential information, as those terms are used in s 104ZZA of the Corrections Act. I am therefore satisfied that s 104ZZA is a 'secrecy provision' to which s 38 of the FOI Act applies.

1. Nothing in Mr Knight's submissions persuades me to depart from the long line of authority supporting the application of section 38 in this case, in the context of Mr Olivia's evidence.
2. The meaning and application of section 38 is clear in this circumstance. Suspicion that the Department may use providing documents to the Board as an appropriate strategy to claim exemption, a suspicion concerning which there is no evidence before me, does not change that reality.
3. While not raised by the Department, there is probably a related reality, that the Board would quickly and strenuously object if it found itself receiving documents irrelevant to its work.
4. With section 38 applying, the Report is exempt from release under the FOI Act because it contains personal affairs information as defined at section 104ZY of the Corrections Act being:

a) information given to the Board that is not disclosed in a decision of the Board or in any reasons given by the Board; > > b) information that identifies persons; and > > c) information that concerns the management of prisons, being the format and methodology used in such reports.

5. With the entire Report exempt under section 38, it is not practicable to make deletions, under section 25 as discussed above, such that the Report would no longer be exempt.
6. Given the certainty that section 38 applies, there is no need to consider the application of section 33(1) - given the broad protection of personal affairs via meaning (c) in section 104ZX, or section 31(1)(a).

Section 50(4) of the FOI Act - public interest override

1. In my view, the public interest does not require that the public interest override be invoked to release the Report which could potentially be released using this power (other than exempt personal affairs material under section 33(1) which would not be subject to the override if it was exercised).
2. Mr Knight did not focus on invoking the override. That said, he raised issues of, in his view, public interest, in terms of challenging the existence of evidence concerning the effectiveness of the Program. His experiences in prison lead him to doubt that effectiveness. Mr Knight provided a list of questions to be put to Mr Olivia. They related to the effectiveness of the program and policies of the Board with respect to paroling prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment.
3. However, Mr Knight's views do not equate with there being a public interest, as opposed to Mr Knight's personal interest, in the Report being provided to him.
4. It appears unlikely that a single report from the Program would have any real value in terms of demonstrating the degree of the Programs' effectiveness.
5. As the Department submitted, In Re Fogarty v Office of Corrections,[12] Jones J saw no public interest requiring release of documents provided to the Board.
6. While acknowledging public interests in the fair and humane treatment of Mr Fogarty as a prisoner, his rehabilitation, ensuring the security in good order of prisons and the welfare of prisoners and prison staff and that the parole system and classification system operate effectively, he noted that FOI proceedings (then at the AAT), are not enquiries into the operation of aspects of the prison system. Somewhat as an analogy to this case, material had been released to Mr Fogarty (here Mr Knight has had opportunities to read the Report), and members of the forensic psychiatric service at the prison were prepared to consult with Mr Fogarty about the documents which had not been released to him.

1. Given the judgement of whether to invoke the public override relates to the evidence in the particular case, I note but do not describe the reasons for VCAT refusing to invoke the override in Knight v Department of Justice (1994)[13] and Knight v Department of Justice (2012).[14]
2. Finally, I note that the Department's original decision in 2015 resulted in Mr Knight receiving a redacted version of the first page of the Report, essentially the title page. With this decision that section 38 applies to the whole Report, in practice he has been provided with that page outside of the operation of the FOI Act, although retrospectively.

[1] [2016] VSC 743.

[2] No disclosure of the Report has occurred under that section and there is no basis in this proceeding for the Tribunal to order such disclosure.

[3] VCAT's jurisdiction to review these decisions is conferred by section 50 of the FOI Act and section 51 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) (VCAT Act).

[4] [2010] HCA 24.

[5] 8 VAR 52.

[7] [2002] VCAT 1769.

[8] [2012] VCAT 369.

[9] [2011] VCAT 1708.

[10] [2010] VSC 338.

[11] [2019] VCAT 586, at [53]

[12] (1989) 3 VAR 214.

[13] (1994) 8 VAR 52.

[14] [2012] VCAT 369.