1. The decision of the respondent not to release the part of document 1 withheld, is set aside and is substituted with a decision to release the withheld part at the expiration of 28 days from the date of this order.
2. The decision of the respondent not to release document 3 is affirmed.

1. Some years ago, Mrs Pritchard's husband died unexpectedly.
2. In the years since he died, she has expressed her concerns about the conduct of members of Victoria Police who attended at the scene of his death. She has made numerous inquiries of Victoria Police in connection with this.
3. It has been the subject of a Victoria Police Ethical Standards Department investigation. As I understand it, the result of that investigation was "No Complaint" with no adverse findings about the conduct of any members. The Ombudsman concurred with these findings.
4. Mrs Pritchard has made seven separate requests to Victoria Police for the release of documents and another three separate requests for the amendment of information contained within those documents.
5. I accept that Mrs Pritchard says her primary objective has always been to seek information and not simply to question the conduct of police, and that she is trying to fully understand why the attending police reported that her husband was suffering a high degree of stress due to his domestic and work situation and that she says they did not confer with her about these matters.
6. In the course of her inquiries, Mrs Pritchard approached the State Coroner's office. In turn in March 2004 that office wrote to an officer at Benalla police station. The author said he believed some of Mrs Pritchard's concerns may have previously been canvassed with that officer. The letter went on to say that in an effort to assist Mrs Pritchard, the author requested that the officer respond to a number of questions. There were eight questions, taken from correspondence between Mrs Pritchard and the coroner's office. Victoria Police replied, confirming that police had received similar requests and that they were being handled by their freedom of information office.
7. Following further inquiries Mrs Pritchard made to the coroner's office, on 1 April 2005, that office sent Mrs Pritchard a further response. The letter stated that Victoria Police had refused to respond to each of Mrs Pritchard's eight questions, citing as the reason for refusing, the ruling in her FOI application, VCAT hearings, Ombudsman and ESD complaints. The letter went on to respond to other inquiries the coroner's office had followed up.
8. Having received that letter, Mrs Pritchard went straight to the police station. According to Mrs Pritchard, she saw the letter from the coroner's office and the advice it contained as yet another refusal by police to answer the eight questions and she was upset.
9. In summary, without going into all the details, what happened that evening was this. Mrs Pritchard arrived at the police station at about 6:00 pm. There was no one there on either shift that evening who could assist her with her inquiries. There was extreme concern about Mrs Pritchard's behaviour. Eventually Mrs Pritchard was persuaded to leave after she was assured her concerns would be passed on to the inspector. She left at 1:45 am having been at the station for almost 8 hours. Her concerns were passed on to the inspector as promised, by email.
10. The inspector, having received the email, made inquiries in relation to the matter, and replied saying he had "made the following decisions". He went on to list five dot points.
11. It is against that background that Mrs Pritchard made the request the subject of this application. As matters unfolded, this hearing concerned only two remaining documents Victoria Police claimed were exempt from release. Mrs Pritchard was represented by Mr McKenna and Ms McKenzie represented Victoria Police. Both parties called evidence and made submissions.

1. The inspector's email has been released to Mrs Pritchard except for most of two of the dot points. Mrs Pritchard seeks the balance. Victoria Police claim those parts are exempt from disclosure under s 30(1) of the Act.
2. The relevant exemption is as follows :

(1) Subject to this section, a document is an exempt document if it is a document the disclosure of which under this Act -

(a) would disclose matter in the nature of opinion, advice or recommendation prepared by an officer or Minister, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place between officers, Ministers, or an officer and a Minister, in the course of, or for the purpose of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of an agency or Minister or of the government; and

1. It will be seen that establishment of this exemption requires proof of two things. First, that the document in question falls within sub-paragraph (a) which is generally summarised as describing 'internal working documents'. If the document satisfies that description, the second consideration is whether its release would be contrary to the public interest. Proof that a document is an internal working document in itself does not make out the exemption, it must be proven additionally that release would be contrary to the public interest.
2. Inspector Johnson, the author of the email gave evidence. He made it clear in his evidence that what he was giving in that email was an instruction. I do not accept Ms McKenzie's submissions that it is a document that is an opinion or recommendation which formed part of the agency's deliberative process.
3. Given the inspector's evidence that it was an instruction and because on the face of the document it is clear that it is communicating decisions made, it cannot possibly be an opinion or recommendation made as part of the deliberative process[1].
4. I am not satisfied that the exemption under s 30(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 has been made out by the respondent with respect to this document. I set aside the decision of the respondent with respect to it and substitute a decision that it is not exempt under s 30(1). It therefore is to be released to Mrs Pritchard.

1. The second document claimed by Victoria Police to be exempt from release, is an email dated 2 August 2005 to the inspector, written by Mrs Pritchard's stepson, who as it turns out is a serving police officer. It was sent in the following circumstances.
2. Following her attendance at the station for almost eight hours on 7 April, Mrs Pritchard sent the inspector some documents. The documents included the questions Mrs Pritchard wanted answers to. The inspector forwarded her request to the FOI division of Victoria Police who advised him they had answered her queries as best as possible, advising that nearly all her queries had been addressed in the ESD file, FOI files and an Ombudsman complaint.
3. The inspector, in an effort to resolve the matter, sought input from two officers, one of whom was Mrs Pritchard's stepson, asking them to comment on each question.
4. The document withheld is the officer stepson's response. As I understand it, he and Mrs Pritchard are estranged and do not communicate.
5. The Victoria Police claim it is exempt from disclosure under s 33(1) of the Act.
6. Under s 33(1) of the Act a document is an exempt document if two conditions are satisfied :

(a) first that disclosure of the document would involve the disclosure of 'information relating to the personal affairs' of a person; and

(b) secondly, such disclosure would be unreasonable.

1. Under s 33(9) "information relating to the personal affairs" of a person, includes information that identifies a person or discloses their address or location and information from which those matters could reasonably be determined. It is well accepted that it is also information that concerns or affects a person as an individual[2] and that opinions and observations that a person makes about another's conduct may be part of that first person's personal affairs[3].
2. If I am satisfied that the information is "information relating to the personal affairs" of a person, I then need to decide whether disclosure would be unreasonable.
3. It is well accepted in this context that deciding whether disclosure is "unreasonable" involves a balancing of competing interests. (see generally Page and Metropolitan Transit Authority (1988) 2 VAR 243; Ryder v Booth [1985] VicRp 86; [1985] VR 869; Department of Agriculture v Binnie [1989] VicRp 73; [1989] VR 836; Re Herald & Weekly Times and Victorian Curriculum & Assessment Authority [2004] VCAT 924; (2004) 21 VAR 68; Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Sifredi (2000) VAR 347).
4. The balance is between the public interest in protecting an individual's right to privacy on the one hand and the public interest in disclosure on the other.
5. Superintendent McMeeken gave evidence about the document describing it as containing personal information as defined and that release of that personal information could put a person whose personal information it contains at risk of harassment by Mrs Pritchard.
6. Having read the email, it is patently clear that it contains the stepson's personal information. Whilst he is a police officer, it is clearly his personal information, and is not to be confused with information obtained in the course of his work.
7. Having found it contains personal information, for the exemption to be made out, I must also be satisfied that its disclosure is unreasonable.
8. Mrs Pritchard's own evidence is that she and her stepson are estranged. She says she wants the information because it would give her peace of mind and reassure her she has nothing to fear from the police in any future dealings. How its release would achieve that is difficult to see. Further, it does not contain answers to any of the questions she poses nor does it contain anything about the investigation into her husband's death. As Superintendent McMeeken says in her evidence, its release could have the potential of exposing the person whose personal information it is to harassment by Mrs Pritchard. Whilst Mrs Pritchard might opine there is no risk of harassment, the perception of others is relevant. Having inspected the document, I accept the Superintendent's evidence that that potential risk is real.
9. Weighing the competing interests, in my view, in these circumstances, disclosure is unreasonable. The balance clearly falls in favour of non-disclosure.

10. I am therefore satisfied that this document is exempt from release under s 33 of the Act. For those reasons, I affirm the decision of Victoria Police not to release it.

[1] See Re Coleman v Director General, Local Government Department, Pentland (1985) 1 VAR 9.

[2] See Hansen v Department of Education & Training [2007] VCAT 123

[3] See Re Richardson and Business Licensing Authority [2003] VCAT 1053