1. The respondent's decision to refuse access to the requested documents under s 25A(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 is affirmed.

1. This case is about whether Court Services Victoria (CSV) can refuse access to the documents Mr Matthew Parker seeks under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). Mr Parker seeks CCTV footage from two cameras behind a specified counter at the Dandenong Magistrates' Court on a particular day.
2. CSV denied his request, relying on s 25A(5) of the FOI Act, which allows a request for access to be refused, without the agency identifying any documents, provided certain requirements are met.
3. Mr Parker applied to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC), which upheld CSV's decision to refuse access. Mr Parker then exercised his right to seek review at VCAT. Mr Parker represented himself.
4. A joint Tribunal Book was filed before the hearing. The Tribunal Book included CSV's statement of legal contentions, and copies of 70 cases. OVIC's decision refers to the relevant cases and sets out the uncontentious legal framework. I heard evidence from Ms Maria Vasilopoulos, Director of Security and Emergency Management at CSV, and from Mr Parker. Both parties made submissions.
5. I have reached the same decision as OVIC, namely that the request may be refused under s 25A(5) of the FOI Act. I am satisfied it is apparent from the nature of the documents as described in the request that the footage sought by Mr Parker would be exempt in full under one or more sections of the FOI Act, and no obligation would arise under s 25 to grant access to an edited copy.
6. The following are my reasons for making that decision.

1. In January 2020, Mr Parker requested access to the following:

unedited video documents from the two CCTV cameras at the Dandenong Magistrates Court in Dandenong behind Counter 3 in domes attached to the ceiling. Counter 3 is accessed directly from the Langhorne St entrance or via elevators from the main entrance on Pultney St one floor below. I wish to obtain the records of the 2hr period from 9am to 11am on the 25th of February 2020 from these cameras.

1. Counter 3 at the Dandenong Magistrates' Court (the Court) is the Registry counter at the Court which deals with intervention order matters.

1. Mr Parker explained why he wants the footage in his May 2020 request for a review to OVIC, which he confirmed before me as essentially his evidence:

I received a Summons on the Friday afternoon of the 21st of February 2020 to appear for an intervention hearing on the 25th of February from a Mr Brendan Carson case no. L10417848.

I scoffed at it in front of the serving police officer indicating that it was nothing but a dossier of lies to discredit me on account he was being investigated for attempting to kill me with a knife on the 27th of January 2020 and suggested I would not attend the hearing. Mr Brendan Carson is the son of a police officer Matthew Carson.[1] Nonetheless I thought it best to attend the hearing on the morning of the 25th of February 2020.

I attended Desk 3 of the Dandenong Magistrates court to register my attendance with the registrar who's name was Mia. She asked me for identification as I had already registered. I said to her that Matthew Parker is a common name and that it was for the intervention hearing regarding Brendan Carson. She confirmed that and that there was an intervention order against Brendan Carson too on my behalf by the police at the same hearing, case No-L10208288. She said she'd call my name again to see who would attend the desk. During the hearing it was noted by the Magistrate that there was confusion as to my identity. A few days later I wanted more information and went to counter 3 to find out as to who attended the desk as myself. I was told that it was a misunderstanding and that Brendan Carson's carer[2] (Brendan Carson was on bail) was mistaken for myself. I found this explanation incredible given the likelihood of two people attending a hearing for intervention orders against each other bizarre to say the least. Justifiably suspicious I decided to make an FOI application via OVIC to the CSV for the video documents of that morning from behind counter 3.

1. Mr Parker said he does not accept the explanation the court officer gave him for why an appearance had been entered for him before he had arrived at the Court. He says it is unlikely that two people on opposite sides of an intervention order application would come to the counter together. He suspects that what really happened was that the other person lined up separately and deliberately gave his (Mr Parker's) name. He wants to know who gave his name and why. He regards the CCTV footage as 'highly relevant evidence' in the context of the final hearing of the intervention order applications, scheduled for August this year, together with the charges against Brendan Carson of attempting to kill him.
2. As to whether there was a misunderstanding, I note that Mr Parker said that Brendan Carson's carer is his brother, Matthew Carson. As I observed at the hearing, 'Matthew Carson' could be mistakenly heard as 'Matthew Parker'.
3. Mr Parker does not accept there was such a mistake, and I am not conducting an inquiry into how the earlier appearance came to be entered. However it happened, and in the context of weighing his interest in the footage against other considerations, it is clear that Mr Parker was then correctly recorded as appearing and was able to attend the hearing, even if the Magistrate referred to the 'confusion'.
4. Mr Parker's interest in the footage is relevant to one of the exemptions under consideration in this case - s 33(1), which is concerned with whether release of the document would be unreasonable disclosure of the personal affairs information of third parties. That in turn requires a balancing of what may be competing interests, including Mr Parker's interest in the footage. I say more about that below.

1. CSV refused to grant access without undertaking a search, under section 25A(5) of the FOI Act, on the basis that any documents falling within the terms of Mr Parker's request, should any exist, would be exempt from release under one or more exemptions in the FOI Act, namely ss 31(1)(d) and (e), and s 33(1).[3] CSV's reasons are set out in full in its decision letter dated 6 April 2020. They included:
   • Disclosure of CCTV footage, which is used to prevent, detect, investigate or deal with breaches or evasions of the law, would undermine court security methods and procedures by revealing information about how CCTV cameras operate, including their location, limits of their view and the timing of recordings.
   • Disclosure of the footage may endanger the lives or physical safety of court users and security officers.
   • Release of the footage would be unreasonable disclosure of the personal affairs of those visible in the footage including members of the public attending court, court staff, court security officers and emergency services personnel, taking into account the nature of the information, the circumstances in which it came to be obtained, and the consequences of release (where there are no restrictions on dissemination).

1. The Public Access Deputy Commissioner was satisfied that refusal of access under s 25A(5) was warranted on the basis that the exemptions under s 33(1) and s 31(1)(d) would apply. In the circumstances, she decided that she did not need to consider s 31(1)(e).
2. In the Tribunal proceedings, CSV submitted that the documents would also be exempt under s 29A(1C), in addition to ss 31(1)(d) and 33(1). The contended exemption under s 31(1)(e) was not pursued.
3. I turn first to s 25A(5), which provides the framework for my decision.

Statutory framework: Refusal of access under s 25A(5)

(5) An agency or Minister may refuse to grant access to the documents in accordance with the request without having identified any or all of the documents to which the request relates and without specifying, in respect of each document, the provision or provisions of this Act under which that document is claimed to be an exempt document if -

(a) it is apparent from the nature of the documents as described in the request that all of the documents to which the request is expressed to relate are exempt documents; and

(i) it is apparent from the nature of the documents as so described that no obligation would arise under section 25 in relation to any of those documents to grant access to an edited copy of the document; or

(ii) it is apparent, from the request or as a result of consultation by the agency or Minister with the person making the request, that the person would not wish to have access to an edited copy of the document.

1. For completeness, s 25 of the FOI Act, referred to in s 25A(5)(b)(i) above, provides:
   1. Deletion of exempt matter or irrelevant material

(a) a decision is made not to grant a request for access to a document on the ground that it is an exempt document or that to grant the request would disclose information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to the request;

(b) it is practicable for the agency or Minister to grant access to a copy of the document with such deletions as to make the copy not an exempt document or a document that would not disclose such information (as the case requires); and

(c) it appears from the request, or the applicant subsequently indicates, that the applicant would wish to have access to such a copy -

the agency or Minister shall grant access to such a copy of the document.

1. Section 25A(5)(a) requires two steps to be taken (also referred to as the first and second limb of s 25A(5)):
   • First, determine the nature of the documents (their inherent or essential quality or character) as described in the request. The nature of the documents must be objectively apparent from the face of the request; and
   • Second, determine whether it is apparent from the nature of the documents so described that all of the documents relevant to the request would be exempt.
2. If the answer to the second question is yes, s 25A(5)(b) then requires a third step (or limb). One of two alternative requirements must be satisfied:
   • It is apparent from the nature of the documents as described that no obligation would arise under s 25 of the FOI Act for the agency to grant access to an edited copy of a document; or
   • It is apparent from the request, or through consultation with the applicant, that they do not seek access to an edited copy of the document.

1. The nature of the document (its inherent or essential quality or character) is apparent from the terms of the request: CCTV footage taken inside the Court from cameras behind counter 3.
2. I turn now to consideration of the second limb of s 25A(5).

Is it apparent from the nature of the documents so described that all of the documents relevant to the request would be exempt?

1. Ms Vasilopoulos' made a witness statement and gave evidence at the hearing. Her evidence was relevant to the exemptions said to apply to the CCTV footage. Ms Vasilopoulos is the Director of Security and Emergency Management at CSV. In that position, she is responsible for the oversight of security management across Victorian Courts, including contract management of court security officers, security related contracts management, and emergency management (such as ensuring the Courts are prepared to respond to unplanned incidents).
2. Her role in relation to management of court security is to ensure that obligations under the Court Security Act 1980 for the security, good order and management of court premises, are satisfied. That includes ensuring the safety of all persons who work at or attend court premises, and the good order or management of legal proceedings and other business conducted at court premises.
3. Apart from statements of argument or submissions from Mr Parker, her evidence was not shaken or substantially challenged on cross-examination. I accept that she has knowledge and experience of the matters she gave evidence about, and accept her evidence, summarised next.

1. Ms Vasilopoulos stated that the quality of the CCTV footage is good and could enable identification of individuals including court users, members of the public, judicial officers, CSV employees working in the courts, court security officers, and Victoria Police members including Protective Services Officers.
2. She stated that counter 3 at the Court is also where persons associated with family violence matters attend, and it is plausible that some of those individuals in the footage may have been in attendance relating to Family Violence cases. This is not contentious: Mr Parker attended counter 3 to register his appearance in relation to the Intervention Order hearing on that day.
3. In relation to personal privacy issues, Ms Vasilopoulos stated in her witness statement that:
   1. In my experience, there is a public expectation that security CCTV footage is collected for security and law enforcement related purpose and will be used only for those purposes. There is also an expectation that footage will not be permanently kept and will be available for use only for a limited period. This is consistent with privacy guidelines established in relation to CCTV surveillance footage and is adhered to by CSV.
   2. Disclosure of footage under the FOI Act or otherwise in an unrestricted way could cause stress, anxiety or embarrassment to persons who are present at court, and at the particular counter - given it is the counter at the Court dealing with intervention orders and attendance could have some connection to such matters.
   3. Depending on the positioning and location of the CCTV cameras and their coverage, such as behind a court counter, it is possible that footage might include visibility and disclosure of what is dealt with at the counter. That can include paperwork that would disclose sensitive personal information about individuals or what is contained on the CSV computer screens, thereby also compromising the object of maintaining security of information.
4. In relation to court security issues, Ms Vasilopoulos stated:
   1. It is vitally important for important State buildings like courts to be protected and for their security to be maintained and not compromised by disclosure of any information which could put such security at risk. That includes security CCTV footage from security cameras within courts. This security measure has been in use for many years in courts in Victoria. It is consistent with minimum standards and controls for securing government buildings and offices identified by the Victorian Auditor-General.
   2. CCTV forms an integral part of the CSV Security Framework and Standards as part of physical security of courts, including the Dandenong Magistrates' Court.
   3. In my experience, there have in the past been threats made about potential bombing of courts. There have also been incidents which have involved actual harm to court premises and property, including at Dandenong Magistrates' Court. It is precisely because of these types of risks or matters that security CCTV footage forms an essential part of how CSV deals with such matters and ensures the security of premises.
   4. In my role, I have had cause to review security CCTV footage from various cameras in various Victorian courts and tribunals from time to time. I have not reviewed the footage that is the subject of the applicant's request for access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 ("FOI Act"). The types of cameras used can vary from court to court.
   5. The primary purpose of the use of security CCTV cameras and footage at Victorian courts is to promote the safety and security of people within the court premises, the security of CSV assets (such as the buildings themselves), and security of information held within those premises. Part of the functions they perform is to operate as a deterrent or to have a preventative role. The mere presence of CCTV cameras in public places supports the perception that they increase safety and prevent crime.
   6. The security CCTV cameras record activity in the vicinity of their physical location as part of the security function of CSV. The footage is kept for a finite period and then, after that cycle expires, the footage is overwritten.
   7. From the footage generated from cameras such as those from which footage is sought, a person viewing that footage would be able to ascertain the limits of the range of vision or coverage of the cameras, including identifying any blind spots not covered by the cameras. This could increase the risk of either the area of the court building shown on the footage being damaged or other offences being carried out within those areas of limitation of range of vision or blind spots.
   8. In summary, there is a real chance that disclosure of such limitations may adversely impact on the effectiveness of the preventative qualities of the cameras. This possibility is not absurd or ridiculous given previous incidents that have occurred in my experience involving risks to court security mentioned earlier.
   9. Although the location of cameras is apparent, disclosure of footage from particular cameras is likely to highlight them and it would be reasonable to expect that would increase the risk of those cameras being damaged or subject to interference, or prevent their use or effectiveness as a security measure in the court.
   10. As a result of disclosure of particular footage at particular times and locations, there is potential for the footage to reveal security related operational matters in the vicinity of the areas where the footage is taken. Those operational matters can include indications of the numbers and different types of security resources or personnel in an area at particular times, which could then be compromised if known or are able to be deduced from the footage, disclosing patrolling times, and other specific operational infrastructure in place which may be ascertainable from the footage.
   11. A person with access to the footage would also have a permanent record which they would be free to view as often and as frequently as required which would enable persons to determine layout design of the area in and around Counter 3 at the Court. It could operate as an unwitting form of reconnaissance.
   12. Disclosure would therefore have a real chance of harming the effectiveness of those operational matters. Again, this possibility is not absurd or ridiculous given previous incidents that have occurred in my experience involving risks to court security mentioned earlier.
   13. CSV goes to significant lengths to ensure limited physical access to recorded footage from security CCTV cameras.
   14. The purposes for which the control room and security CCTV footage may be accessed is similarly very limited to things such as:

(a) if there is a request for access under the FOI Act, the footage is "pulled" so that it is not overridden in the usual course;

(b) if there is an incident which requires CSV to review the footage;

(c) if there is an incident and a request is made by Victoria Police for law enforcement related reasons.

1. In summary, CCTV is only released to limited persons for the purposes of:
   • providing evidence in criminal proceedings;
   • providing evidence in civil proceedings;
   • investigation and detection of crime and antisocial behaviour (including identifying offenders);
   • identification of witnesses; and
   • the prevention and reduction of crime and disorder.

1. Section 33(1) provides:
   1. Document affecting personal privacy

(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information relating to the personal affairs of any person (including a deceased person).

Would the footage disclose personal affairs information? Yes

1. 'Information relating to the personal affairs of any person' includes information that identifies any person or discloses their address or location; or from which any person's identity, address or location can reasonably be determined.[4]
2. It is uncontentious that CCTV footage from cameras located in a court would capture the presence, movement, and interactions of a wide range of individuals who were at the Court for various reasons. The requested footage would capture the images of those who were in the vicinity of the cameras on 25 February 2020 between 9am and 11am.
3. A person's visual image constitutes personal affairs information.[5] Their location constitutes personal affairs information. Whether or not Mr Parker could identify any individuals visible in the footage is not relevant. From the footage, their identity and location could be identified. Given the location of the cameras, it is also possible, as Ms Vasilopoulos stated, that the footage would capture documents, only visible from behind the counter, that contained personal information such as paperwork or information on the computer screens. The footage would also capture the images of people attending at that counter in relation to personal safety-related applications and hearings.
4. I am satisfied that release of the footage would disclose personal affairs information of a wide range of individuals other than Mr Parker.

1. In Lonigro v Victoria Police [2013] VCAT 1003, at [44] the Tribunal observed that:

[Section 33(1)] requires a balancing assessment between the interest in personal privacy of an individual whose affairs may be unreasonably disclosed and the object of the Act, which is to give the community access to information held by the Government and its agencies. The factors to be taken into account include: the nature of the information, how it was obtained, the purpose for which the information is sought and the likelihood of it being information that the relevant individuals do not want disclosed.

1. Disclosure of a document to an individual FOI applicant is not disclosure to the world at large but once it is in the hands of an individual, restrictions on wider dissemination will ordinarily be lost. The potential for disclosure to others and the consequences are a relevant consideration.[6]
2. Taking into account the evidence of Ms Vasilopoulos, I am satisfied that the following factors weigh against disclosure being reasonable.

The nature of the personal affairs information and the circumstances in which the information was obtained

1. The CCTV footage would depict the images, movements, and interactions of individuals other than Mr Parker, including court users, witnesses, other members of the public, judicial officers, CSV employees, Victoria Police members and Protective Services Officers.
2. Those persons' images are captured in the interests of the primary purpose of CCTV cameras in courts: to maintain a safe and secure environment within court buildings and to prevent, detect, investigate, and deal with security issues, including breaches or evasions of the laws.
3. The purpose of CCTV footage is not to provide a record of who was there on any particular day to individuals who are not involved in the security of a court, such as Mr Parker.

Whether the individuals to whom the information relates object or would be likely to object to the release of the information

1. Those attending the Court would not reasonably expect CCTV footage to be routinely released under FOI. They would be reasonably likely to object to its release other than for security, law enforcement or health and safety purposes.
2. Those whose images appear attending at counter 3 would have an additional objection, given that, for many, their attendance is to do with issues of personal safety and in circumstances where they are seeking the protection of the Court.
3. I agree with Ms Vasilopoulos's statement that disclosure of the footage in an unrestricted way could cause stress and anxiety to those who attended the counter on that day, above the 'normal' stress and anxiety of attending the Court for that purpose.
4. Mr Parker said there was no difference between him viewing the footage and being in the Court watching people going about their business. I disagree. The footage if accessed would provide a permanent record, that could be copied and disseminated, which is quite different to momentary observations.

The applicant's interest in the information, and whether his purpose for seeking the information is likely to be achieved

1. Mr Parker's interest in the footage is purely personal. He does not accept the explanation given to him, that there was a misunderstanding, and he wants to see for himself what may have happened.
2. It is possible that the footage will show what he suspects - that the person lined up separately. It is also possible that viewing the footage will support the explanation he was given, by showing that Brendon Carson's carer attended the counter at the same time. But the footage would not disclose the reasons or motives of the person, or what was said, and so would be of limited use.
3. I acknowledge that Mr Parker considers the footage to be highly important evidence, but it remains unclear why that would be so. I note here Ms Vasilopoulos' evidence that if police consider CCTV footage to be relevant to law enforcement, they are able to view it. In any event, his personal interest in the footage is outweighed by competing considerations in this case.

Whether any public interest would be promoted by release of the information

1. No public interest would be served by release of the footage to Mr Parker, in my view. To the contrary, release has the potential to undermine the security of the Court and generate legitimate criticism that CCTV footage taken in the Court has been released for purposes other than security and law enforcement or health and safety purposes.

The likelihood of further disclosure of the information, if released

1. There is no evidence that Mr Parker would publicly disseminate the footage, but if released to him he would be free to use or disseminate it as he chooses. This potential for wider dissemination is a relevant consideration here and in relation to s 31(1)(d).

1. Section 31(1)(d) provides:
   1. Law enforcement documents

(1) Subject to this section, a document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be reasonably likely to -

(d) disclose methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating, or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law the disclosure of which would, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures ...

1. The cases referred to in CSV's submissions[7] tell us that:
   • s 31(1)(d) does not apply to widespread and well-known methods or procedures;
   • 'reasonably likely' means there is a real chance of an event occurring and it is not fanciful or remote; and
   • 'prejudice' means to hinder, impair, or undermine.
2. Mr Parker submitted that the location of the CCTV cameras is known - he has identified them, and it is well-known what they are used for.
3. I agree that the fact that CCTV cameras are used in the courts in the way described by Ms Vasilopoulos is well known, and that the location of CCTV cameras can often (but not always) be identified.
4. Viewing footage from particular cameras would, however, disclose aspects of the operation of the camera that would not otherwise be known, including:
   • The limits of the range of vision or the coverage of the cameras, including any blind spots; and
   • The timing of recordings.
5. I accept that this would be reasonably likely to undermine the effectiveness of the CCTV cameras, including as a deterrent measure, by potentially indicating how the cameras could be circumvented. Ms Vasilopoulos' evidence about past threats and incidents of harm to court premises is relevant in this context.
6. In all the circumstances, I agree with the view of the Public Access Deputy Commissioner that:

In a court environment in which security and law enforcement matters are a foreseeable occurrence, I am satisfied release of the CCTV footage, should any exist, would be reasonably likely to prejudice the effectiveness of security measures and procedures at the Court.

1. I am satisfied the documents would be exempt under s 31(1)(d) of the FOI Act.

1. The legal contentions on behalf of CSV included that the footage would also be exempt under s 29A(1C) of the FOI Act.

1. Section 29A is concerned with documents affecting national security, defence, or international relations.
2. Under s 29A(1), a document is an exempt document if disclosure of the document under the FOI Act would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to:

(a) the security of the Commonwealth or any State or Territory; or

(c) the international relations of the Commonwealth.

1. Section 29(1D) requires an agency or Minister, in deciding whether a document is exempt under s 29A, if practicable, to notify relevant persons or entities and seek their views.
2. Section 29A(2) provides for evidential certificates from the Chief Commissioner of Police or a Department Head Section 29A(2)(a) is an example:[8]

(a) a certificate signed by a Department Head or the Chief Commissioner of Police certifying that a document as described in a request is or, if it existed, would be one of a kind referred to in subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) establishes that the document is or, if it existed, would be an exempt document;

1. Section 29A(1C), relied on in the submissions, provides that:

(1C) Without limiting subsection (1), a document is an exempt document if subsection (1B) as in force before the commencement of section 6 of the Emergency Management Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Resilience) Act 2014 would apply to or in respect of the document had section 6 of the Emergency Management Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Resilience) Act 2014 not come into operation.

1. Section 29(1C) incorporates by reference subsection (1B) as in force before 2014 amendments. Subsection (1B) as in force at the relevant time provided that:

(1B) Without limiting subsection (1), a document is an exempt document if -

(a) its disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, endanger the security of any premises within the meaning of the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003;[9] or

(b) it is a risk management plan prepared under section 29 of the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003; or

(c) it is a document containing, or containing a general outline of, a training exercise prepared under section 33 of the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003; or

(d) it is a document that is or contains a report or advice on the adequacy of a plan referred to in paragraph (b) or of a document or exercise referred to in paragraph (c) or may otherwise disclose details of any such plan or exercise -

whether the document is created before or after the commencement of section 22 of the Terrorism (Community Protection) (Further Amendment) Act 2006.

1. For completeness I note that s 29A(2) of the FOI Act as in force at the relevant time, also provided for an evidential certificate to establish that the document would be an exempt document:

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a certificate signed by a Department Head or the Chief Commissioner of Police, certifying that a document as described in a request is or would, if it existed, be one of a kind referred to in a specified paragraph of subsection (1) or (1B) or in subsection (1A), establishes that the document is or would, if it existed, be an exempt document.

1. I have already found that the footage sought would be exempt under s 33(1) and s 31(1)(d), and do not need to decide whether s 29A(1C) operates to exempt the footage.
2. As an observation only, I note there appeared to be some potential issues with the submission.
3. Section 29(1D) was not referred to in the submissions, and there was no evidence about whether or not that required step had been taken.
4. Nor did the submissions refer to s 29A(2), and there was no such certificate in this case.
5. Whether a certificate under s 29A(2) is required to establish the exemption (or it may be established by other evidence), and what s 29A(1D) might require by way of evidence, are no doubt issues which can be canvassed fully in the future, if needed.

1. The third limb of s 25A(5)(b) requires that either:

(i) it is apparent from the nature of the documents as so described that no obligation would arise under section 25 in relation to any of those documents to grant access to an edited copy of the document; or

(ii) it is apparent, from the request or as a result of consultation by the agency or Minister with the person making the request, that the person would not wish to have access to an edited copy of the document.

1. Mr Parker's request was specific: he requested "unedited" CCTV footage from the two cameras. Indications that he might accept an edited copy (if an unedited copy was denied) only came in communications with OVIC referred to in the notice of decision. At the hearing, he said that he would accept footage with any paperwork or other sensitive documents on the counter edited out. It remains clear, however, that he wants to see faces.
2. Having regard to Mr Parker's purpose in requesting the CCTV footage, I am satisfied that deletion of exempt material under s 33(1) would render the information in the documents meaningless to him, even if it were practicable to do so. And under s 31(1)(d) the whole of the footage is exempt.
3. I am satisfied that there is no obligation under s 25 of the FOI Act to grant access to an edited copy of the CCTV footage. In the circumstances, I do not need to determine whether, as submitted on behalf of CSV, Mr Parker's expression of interest in an edited copy came too late.

1. For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the requirements of s 25A(5) of the FOI Act have been met.
2. I will affirm the decision of CSV to refuse access.

[1] Mr Parker said at the hearing before me that Mr Brendan Carson is his nephew and is the son of Mr Parker's brother-in-law Matthew Carson.

[2] Mr Parker said that Mr Brendan Carson's carer is his brother, also called Matthew Carson.

[3] Section 31 is concerned with law enforcement documents. Section 33 is concerned with documents affecting personal privacy.

[5] Lonigro v Victoria Police [2013] VCAT 1003 at [43] referring to Mickelburough v Victoria Police [2009] VCAT 2786 and Horrocks v Department of Justice [2012] VCAT 241.

[6] See generally, Victoria Police v Marke [2008] VSCA 218; Page v Metropolitan Transit Authority (1988) 2 VAR 243.

[7] Including XYZ v Victoria Police [2010] VCAT 255; Bergman v Department of Justice Freedom of Information Officer [2012] VCAT 363; Rogers v Chief Commissioner of Police [2009] VCAT 2526.

[8] Under Schedule 1 to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), cl 29B, where a certificate is in force, the Tribunal may only consider whether there were reasonable grounds for the issue of such a certificate. See Willner v City of Melbourne [2015] VCAT 1594 as an example of the Tribunal constituted by the President, Justice Garde, conducting such a review. Under cl 29C of Schedule 1, the Tribunal must be constituted by a judicial member or judicial members.

[9] CSV's submissions were that (1B)(a) of the former version applied to the footage.