Styles v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2026] NSWCATAD 52;

1. The Respondent filed the following confidential material:

(1) Respondent's Confidential Submissions 21 July 2025, annexing un-redacted copies of the documents in dispute at Annexure B

(2) Confidential Affidavit of Daniel Gordon filed 21 July 2025.

1. The Respondent sought orders in relation to confidential material filed by the Respondent under s 107 of the GIPA Act and s 64 of the NCAT Act. The Respondent submitted that the orders were necessary as the material contains both the information in contention, and evidence and submissions in relation to the information in contention, that the Respondent submits is subject to an overriding public interest against disclosure.
2. The Applicant opposed the orders contending that there is no "verifiable proof that the information was given in confidence by employees of the relevant agencies in this matter."
3. Section 107(1) of the GIPA Act provides that in determining an application for administrative review, 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.
4. Section 107(2) of the GIPA Act provides that on an administrative review, the Tribunal must receive evidence and hear argument in the absence of the public, the review applicant and the applicant's representative if in the opinion of the Tribunal it is necessary to do so to prevent the disclosure of information for which there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.
5. On 11 September 2025 the Tribunal ordered that the hearing of evidence and submissions relating to the confidential documents must be held in private, being satisfied that s 107 of the GIPA Act was made out.
6. The Tribunal, being satisfied it is desirable by reason of the confidential nature of the material ordered that:

(1) the publication of the matters contained in confidential documents or evidence given in confidential proceedings is prohibited, under section 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NCAT Act)

(2) the disclosure of the matters contained in confidential documents or evidence given in confidential proceedings is prohibited to anyone other than the Respondent and the Tribunal, under section 64(1)(d) of the NCAT Act.

1. While not disputed by the parties, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent's decision to refuse access to information is a decision reviewable by the Tribunal pursuant to s 80 of the GIPA Act. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to conduct this review pursuant to s 100 of the GIPA Act, read with ss 28 and 30 of the NCAT Act and s 9 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act).

1. The Tribunal's function under s 63 of the ADR Act is to determine, based on the material before it, what is the correct and preferable decision, and may affirm, vary, or set aside the decision and make a substitute decision, or set aside the decision and remit it to the agency for further determination. The Tribunal is not limited to the material before the Respondent.
2. The burden of establishing that a decision made under the GIPA Act is justified lies on the agency: s 105(1) of the GIPA Act.

1. Objects of the GIPA Act include giving the public an enforceable right to access government information, restricted only when there is an overriding public interest against disclosure: ss 3(b) and (c). The GIPA Act is to be interpreted and applied to further the object of the Act and discretions are to be exercised as far as possible to facilitate and encourage, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, access to government information: s3(2).
2. Section 5 of the GIPA Act establishes a presumption in favour of the disclosure of government information unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.
3. Under s 9 of the GIPA Act a person who makes an access application for government information has a legally enforceable right to be provided with access to the information, in accordance with Part 4 of that Act, unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of the information.
4. Under s 12(1) of the GIPA Act there is a general public interest in favour of the disclosure of government information. Section 12(2) provides that public interest considerations in favour of disclosure are not limited and sets out some examples of such public interest considerations.
5. Section 55(2) of the GIPA Act provides that personal factors of the application can also be taken into account as factors in favour of providing the applicant with access to the information requested.
6. The public interest test in s 13 of the GIPA Act requires a determination of whether 'on balance' there are public interest considerations against disclosure which outweigh the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure.
7. The only public interest considerations against disclosure that can be considered are those identified in section 14 of the GIPA Act. This includes considerations set out in Sch 1 of the GIPA Act, which does not apply in this case.
8. The Respondent submits that the information withheld from release is subject to an overriding public interest against disclosure under clls (1)(d), 1(f), 1(g), 3(a) and 3(b) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act as follows:

1 Responsible and effective government

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information if disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have one or more of the following effects (whether in a particular case or generally) -

...

(d) prejudice the supply to an agency of confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of that agency's functions,

...

(f) prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of the agency's functions,

(g) found an action against an agency for breach of confidence or otherwise result in the disclosure of information provided to an agency in confidence

...

3 Individual rights, judicial processes and natural justice

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information if disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have one or more of the following effects -

(a) reveal an individual's personal information,

(b) contravene an information protection principle under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 or a Health Privacy Principle under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002,

...

1. The term 'personal information' is relevant to clls 3(a) (could reasonably be expected to reveal an individual's personal information) and 3(b) (relevantly could contravene an information protection principle under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988 (PPIP Act) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act. The term is defined in cl 4(1) of Sch 4 of the GIPA Act as:

information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database and whether or not recorded in a material form) about an individual (whether living or dead) whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information or opinion.

1. Under cl 4(3)(b) of Sch 4 of the GIPA Act 'personal information' does not include:

(b) information about an individual (comprising the individual's name and non-personal contact details, including the individual's position title, public functions and the agency in which the individual works) that reveals nothing more than the fact that the person was engaged in the exercise of public functions...

1. Information protection principle (IPP) in s 18 of the PPIP Act limits the circumstances in which a government agency is permitted to disclose personal information it holds as follows:

(1) A public sector agency that holds personal information must not disclose the information to a person (other than the individual to whom the information relates) or other body, whether or not such other person or body is a public sector agency, unless -

(a) the disclosure is directly related to the purpose for which the information was collected, and the agency disclosing the information has no reason to believe that the individual concerned would object to the disclosure, or

(b) the individual concerned is reasonably likely to have been aware, or has been made aware in accordance with section 10, that information of that kind is usually disclosed to that other person or body, or

(c) the agency believes on reasonable grounds that the disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of the individual concerned or another person.

1. An agency that discloses personal information it holds of a person contrary to s 18 of the PPIP Act engages in conduct in contravention of that Act: PPIP Act s 52.
2. Relevant to cl 3(a) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act (disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal an individual's personal information), under Sch 4 cl 1 of the GIPA Act, "reveal" information means "to disclose information that has not already been publicly disclosed (otherwise than by unlawful disclosure)".
3. A determination as to whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information is to be made in accordance with the principles set out in s 15 of the GIPA Act. That section provides that agencies must exercise their functions to promote the object of the Act and have regard to relevant guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner.
4. 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 (s 15(c)) as is the fact that disclosure of information might be misinterpreted or misunderstood by any person (s 15(d)). It is however relevant under s 15(e) to consider that disclosure cannot be made subject to any conditions on the use or disclosure of information: see s 73 of the GIPA Act which generally prevents any conditions being imposed by an agency on the use or disclosure of information provided in response to an access application.

1. Under s 54 an agency must take such steps (if any) as are reasonably practicable to consult with a person before providing access to information relating to them in certain circumstances. Section 54 relevantly provides:

54 Consultation on public interest considerations

(1) An agency must take such steps (if any) as are reasonably practicable to consult with a person before providing access to information relating to the person in response to an access application if it appears that -

(a) the information is of a kind that requires consultation under this section, and

(b) the person may reasonably be expected to have concerns about the disclosure of the information, and

(c) those concerns may reasonably be expected to be relevant to the question of whether there is a public interest consideration against disclosure of the information.

(2) Information relating to a person is of a kind that requires consultation under this section if the information -

(a) includes personal information about the person, or

...

1. The issue of searches may be considered by the Tribunal as relevant to review of an implied decision that government information is not held by the Respondent. Such a decision is reviewable under s 80(e) of the GIPA Act.
2. Under s 53 of the GIPA Act the Respondent must undertake such reasonable searches as may be necessary to find any of the government information applied for that was held by the agency when the application was received. The Respondent's searches must be conducted using the most efficient means reasonably available to it.

Balancing the competing public interest considerations

1. In Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286, the task of the Tribunal was described as follows:

".... in all cases other than those falling under the terms of Schedule 1, the public interest test under the GIPA Act involves the following:

(a) identifying the public interest in favour of disclosure;

(b) identifying the public interest against disclosure; and

(c) determine where the balance lies".

1. Applying the public interest test in s 13 of the GIPA Act requires a two-step approach to the question of whether information has been properly refused: see Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Camilleri (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 19 at [24]. The Tribunal stated at [25] and [26]:

25....The agency case for refusal must rely on one or more of the section 14 Table considerations. The Tribunal's task is then to weigh that case against the factors favouring disclosure (s 13), mindful of the injunctions that appear in both ss 12 and 15. It is important, in our view, that the Tribunal proceed in the structured way reflected by these provisions. The Table considerations are concerned with systemic features of the operation of government.

26 We agree with the agency's submission that the section 14 questions needed to be examined at a broader operational level than occurred in this case. The record in issue was generated in one of the standard services of the police force. It would not be usual, as we see it, to introduce at this stage of the process considerations connected with the particulars of the instant situation. The agency acknowledged that at the next stage of the enquiry, the section 13 stage, it would be proper to have regard to specific aspects of the instant case.

1. The Tribunal should "engage in a relatively abstract analysis" and "ask whether material of the kind sought to be protected on the present occasion would, if released, prejudice the supply of similar material to government in the future": Department of Education and Training v Mullett [2002] NSWADTAP 13 at [58].
2. Balancing the competing public interest considerations is "a question of fact and degree, requiring the weighing of competing matters, and a task that is not amenable to mathematical calculation": Hurst v Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 at [70].

1. The public interest considerations in cll 1(d) and 1(f) of the Table in s 14 of the GIPA Act relevant to this case, require that there is "prejudice" to the agency. The word "prejudice" is to be given its ordinary meaning, "to cause detriment or disadvantage," or to "impede or derogate from": Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 301 at [60] citing Re: Maher and the Attorney General's Department (No 2) (1986) 4 AAR 266 and Sobh v Victoria Police [1994] VicRp 2; (1994) 1 VR 41.
2. The question as to prejudice to future supply is not to be determined by reference to the particulars of each particular situation but at a "broader operational level." It is not necessary to show that it could reasonably be expected to occur on every occasion: Danis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 311 at [122] referring to Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19 at [21], [22] and [26].
3. "Reasonably be expected to"
4. It is necessary that disclosure of the Information "could reasonably be expected to" have the effect identified. This calls for an objective test to be made from the point of a view of a "reasonable" administrator: Hall v Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 46 at [45]. This is also to be determined as a question of fact based on real and substantial grounds and not just a "mere risk or chance": Australian Vaccination Network v Department of Finance and Services [2013] NSWADT 60 at [22] citing Flack at [40] - [41] and Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298 at [25].
5. The Tribunal does not require evidence that a prejudicial effect of information disclosure has previously occurred or manifested or will manifest: Transport for NSW v Searle [2018] NSWCATAP 93 (Searle).
6. Courts and Tribunals are prepared to rely on a natural implication that the flow of future information is likely to be adversely affected without direct evidence from the providers of information, see the decisions in Commonwealth v Northern Land Council [1993] HCA 24; (1992) 176 CLR 604 at 615; Attorney - General (NSW) v Stuart (1994) 34 NSWLR 667 at 674-675; Betfair Pty Limited v Racing New South Wales (No 7) [2009] FCA 1140; 181 FCR 66 at [24] - [25]; Woolley v Lismore City Council [2013] NSWADT 10 at [73] - [74] cited in Searle at [64].

1. Certain clauses in the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act require that the information "discloses" or "reveals" certain matters, including personal information. As stated at [30], under Sch 4 cl 1 of the GIPA Act "reveal" information means "to disclose information that has not already been publicly disclosed (otherwise than by unlawful disclosure)."
2. The words "publicly disclosed" require there to have been a prior disclosure of information to the general public. Redacted personal information has not been revealed where the personal information is already known to the Applicant: Thomson v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 53 at [146]- [147] (Thomson).

Prejudicing the supply of confidential information

1. For the consideration in cl 1(d) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act to be applied, it must be established that:

(1) the information was obtained in confidence

(2) disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply of such information to the agency in the future; and

(3) the information facilitates the effective exercise of the agency's functions: Collins v Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2018] NSWCATAD 60 at [61].

1. The Tribunal has found that the disclosure of witness information would prejudice the supply of future information. In Department of Education and Training v Mullett (No 2) [2002] NSWADTAP 29 at [50] (Mullet No 2) the Tribunal stated that "some [people] might withdraw co-operation completely out of fear (reasonable or otherwise) of adverse repercussions..." referred to in EHW v Secretary, Department of Education [2022] NSWCATAD 140 at 115.
2. In Head v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2010] NSWADT 27 the Tribunal recognised that confidential information received from complainants (including informants) and witnesses should be kept confidential to maintain the flow of information. It stated at [67] that:

"it is important to maintain confidentiality over the identity of complainants and witnesses and the information provided even after investigations are concluded. I am also satisfied that should the complaint documents or statements be disclosed, the future supply of such information may be prejudiced.

1. In McNeill v Clarence Valley Council [2025] NSWCATAP 184 (McNeil) at [60]-[61], the Appeal Panel stated that:

...The question of whether all requested information has been located becomes a reviewable decision in the following way. If the agency's answer is that it has no further information in relation to the information sought, that is a decision that the "information is not held by the agency" (s 58(1)(b)). A decision that government information is not held by an agency is a reviewable decision (s 80(d)) (sic). Such a decision may be said to be an implied decision responding to an access application (see Robinson v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAP 73 at [8]; Amos v Central Coast Council [2018] NSWCATAD 101 at [31]- [32]).

Whether an agency has complied with the obligation imposed by s 53 of the GIPA Act is a relevant factor in determining whether a decision that "information is not held" by the agency is the "correct and preferable decision" (GIPA Act s 100(1); Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (ADR Act) s 63(1)). The agency has the onus of establishing that the decision under review is justified: GIPA Act, s 105(1).

1. In Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173 at [44], cited with approval by the Appeal Panel in McNeill at [68], the Appeal Panel summarised the Tribunal's task in reviewing a decision of an agency that it does not hold the information sought as follows:

"(1) identify on the basis of the agency's reasons and the applicant's submissions, any relevant factual issues including those derived from s 53(1) - (5);

(2) determine whether the agency has proved any relevant factual issues on the balance of probabilities;

(3) consider any evidence which may have emerged since the agency made its decision, which might tend to prove that the requested information is held by the agency;

(4) applying those findings, decide what the correct or preferable decision is;

(5) affirm, set aside or vary the agency's decision: s 63(3) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act."

1. The witness information withheld by the Respondent consists of the bottom two lines of page 2, the whole of page 3, one and a half lines on page 4 and two lines on page 13 of Annexure B to the Respondent's Confidential Submissions.

Public interest factors in favour of disclosure

1. The Respondent identified the following factors in favour of disclosure of the information sought:

(1) the general public interest in favour of disclosing government information (s 12(1) of the GIPA Act)

(2) the general right of the public to have access to government information held by agencies

(3) disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to enhance Government accountability

(4) 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

(5) disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to advance the fair treatment of individuals in accordance with the law in their dealings with agencies

(6) disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal the reasons for an agency's decisions, and any background or contextual information that informed the decision, and

(7) the personal factors of the Applicant's application, including that some of the information requested contains her personal information, and her personal interest in understanding how her complaint was investigated and the reasons why it was dismissed.

1. The Respondent submits that this is a case where the public interest has already predominately been met by the release of material to the Applicant, and that the public interest factors in favour of disclosure should be given limited weight. In the Respondent's submission, the material already available to the Applicant is sufficient to enable her to understand the investigative process undertaken in relation to her complaint, the reasons why it was dismissed and effectively satisfies the public interest factors at [54].
2. In particular, the Respondent submits that the Applicant has now received records which outline the methodology and processes followed by the Respondent in investigating her complaint. The Applicant has received a formal response to her complaint explaining the reasons for its dismissal and a draft response to her complaint, which provides further information regarding the reasons behind its dismissal. The Applicant has also received documents summarising the evidence gathered in investigating her complaint and emails which shed light on the processes and steps undertaken to investigate her complaint.
3. The Respondent contends that the Applicant has been provided with access to the vast majority of the information sought and only the witness statement information (about 1 page of information) has been withheld. Very little weight should be placed on any public interest considerations in favour of disclosure.
4. The Applicant does not agree that she has been provided with reasons by the Respondent.

Consideration 1(d)-disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply to an agency of confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of that agency's functions

1. The Respondent submits that the witness statements were obtained on the understanding that the information would be kept confidential and disclosure of such information would prejudice the future supply of information.
2. In the Open Affidavit of Mr Gordon, dated 21 July 2025 (Gordon Open Affidavit), Mr Gordon annexed the Respondent's "Managing Complaints and Feedback Policy" (Policy) and the NSW Ombudsman Effective Complaint Management Guidelines (Guidelines) on which the Policy is based. The Guidelines refer to complaints about staff members and notes that "confidentiality is essential."
3. The Gordon Open Affidavit gives evidence that all witness statements and related information, including identifying information of witnesses, are treated as confidential. This includes any verbal or written accounts provided during interviews, as well as any supporting documentation.
4. The Respondent contends that even where witnesses are not expressly advised that the information they provide will be treated confidentially, this can be inferred from the circumstances. In this case the allegations are of staff misconduct and such information would not be disclosed by an employer in ordinary circumstances, particularly where the allegations appear not to be substantiated.
5. Applying Cammilleri and Danis, the Respondent submits that in considering whether or not the disclosure of confidential information would prejudice the future supply of such information, it is necessary to consider the impacts on the agency's general ability to obtain similar information in the future.
6. The Respondent relies on the evidence in the Gordon Open Affidavit which attests to his experience that expectations of confidentiality are essential in facilitating witness cooperation. In his view, a lack of confidence in the Respondent's ability to protect witness information will result in witnesses being reluctant to come forward in the future. The Respondent contends that even if witnesses do agree to participate they are likely to be less honest or candid in their responses.
7. The Respondent contends that the disclosure of witness information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the NSW Sheriff's Office's ability to obtain information in the future, which would impede the effective exercise of the Office's complaints handling and investigative functions and its ability to ensure the quality and effective delivery of services to the community. The Respondent submits that significant weight should be apportioned to this public interest consideration against disclosure as the need to properly and fairly investigate complaints alleging staff misconduct is an important function of the NSW Sherrif's Office.
8. The Applicant submits that Mr Gordon's evidence and experience has no relevance to the Respondent's withholding of information.
9. The Applicant also refers to the Respondent's position that the witness information was obtained in confidence and states that while the Respondent maintains confidentiality to protect the release of witness statements, it has not protected the personal information of the Applicant. The Applicant refers to allegations of a breach of the PPIP Act and her complaint made on 30 June 2025 alleging breach of the Applicant's personal information.

Consideration 1(f)-disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of the agency's functions

1. The Respondent relies on the submissions in relation to cl (1)(d) as applicable to cl (1)(f).
2. The Respondent identifies the relevant function of the agency as the function to investigate complaints including those alleging staff misconduct. In the Respondent's submission disclosure of the witness information obtained in confidence is likely to impact on the Office's ability to effectively gather evidence to investigate complaints. This in turn would impact the Office's ability to ensure public facing staff conduct themselves appropriately and to ensure the quality and effective delivery of services to the community.
3. The Applicant contends that if witnesses are not employed by the Respondent they cannot be engaged in the exercise of public functions.

Consideration 1(g) - disclosure could reasonably be expected to found an action for breach of confidence or otherwise result in the disclosure of information provided to an agency in confidence

1. For the reasons given in relation to cl 1(d) and cl 1(f), the Respondent claims that the witness information was obtained in confidence. The Respondent also contends that there is an equitable duty of confidence between the Respondent and witnesses, that the Respondent has maintained confidentiality, and that disclosure would not be anticipated by the witnesses. In the Respondent's submission disclosure could result in an action for breach of confidence.
2. In the alternative the Respondent submits that providing the Applicant with access to the witness information would amount to a disclosure of information provided in confidence.

Consideration 3(a) and (b) - disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal an individual's personal information or contravene an information protection principle

1. The Respondent contends that the information includes the personal information of an employee of the Respondent which goes beyond revealing that the person was engaged in the exercise of public functions and reveals their observations and perspectives of an incident, and their opinions of other third parties. The remaining witness information consists of identifying information, observations and opinions provided by individuals who are not employed by the Respondent.
2. In submitting that the information is personal information, the Respondent refers to Information Commissioner Guideline 4 - Personal Information as a public interest consideration under the GIPA Act. That Guideline notes that witness statements taken during a disciplinary investigation could be personal information and that in offering an opinion about someone else, personal information about the giver of the opinion may also be revealed.
3. The Respondent submits that personal information would be "revealed" if disclosed under the GIPA Act as it has not been publicly disclosed.
4. The Respondent also submits that cl 3(b) is made out as disclosure would be contrary to IPP 18, the disclosure principle, as none of the exceptions in the PPIP Act apply.
5. The Applicant contends that the information does not belong to the witness and so the information cannot be held to be personal information of the employee.
6. The Applicant also contends that the opinions and personal reflections are irrelevant to public interest considerations. In addition the Applicant submits that disclosure would not "reveal" personal information as the personal information of public officials dealing with this matter is already known to the Applicant.
7. The Respondent did not consult with the affected third parties as it did not consider releasing their witness information. The Respondent submits that even if third party consultation was conducted and the third parties did not object to the release of their information, the release of their information will have the adverse effect on the Department's functions in accordance with cll 1(d) and 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
8. The Applicant considers that it would be beneficial for the Respondent to undertake third party consultation to apply the public interest test, and that the Respondent's concerns regarding the witnesses is misdirected as the individuals are already known to the Applicant.

Attributing weight and determining whether the balance lies in favour of or against disclosure of the witness information

1. The Tribunal considers that Mr Gordon is a suitable witness in these proceedings and has given weight to his evidence. This is because Mr Gordon holds the role of Deputy Sheriff, Director, Operational Capability and Performance, NSW Sheriff's Office with the Respondent and is responsible for a range of matters including managing complaints within the NSW Sheriffs Office.
2. The Tribunal agrees with the public interest factors in favour of disclosing the witness information identified by the Respondent. The Tribunal gives weight to those factors including that some of the witness information includes the Applicant's personal information.
3. In relation to the Respondent's contention that the Applicant has been given access to the vast majority of the information sought, while not determinative, the Tribunal has given this some weight as it goes towards satisfying the public interest factors at [54].
4. In relation to the factors against disclosure, the Tribunal is satisfied that the public interest factors relied on by the Respondent at cll 1(d), 1(f), 1(g) of the Table at s 14 of the GIPA Act are made out. The Tribunal has previously considered that disclosing witness information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply to an agency of confidential information (see Mullet No 2) and the Gordon Open Affidavit provides evidence of the broader impact disclosure is likely to have on the exercise of the agency's complaint handling functions.
5. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the witness information was provided in circumstances where witnesses would expect their information to remain confidential, given the context of misconduct allegations. Providing the Applicant with access to the witness information would amount to a disclosure of information provided in confidence.
6. The Tribunal does not accept the Respondent's submission that disclosure is likely to impact the honesty of witness accounts, as employees at least have a duty to act honestly. However the ability of the Respondent to rely on witnesses coming forward voluntarily and with candor, is reasonably likely to be impacted by disclosing the witness information: Mullet No 2 at [50].
7. The Tribunal also finds cll 3(a) and 3(b) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act made out. Based on a review of the withheld witness information, it goes beyond revealing that the person employed by the Respondent was engaged in the exercise of public functions and reveals their observations and opinions. Applying the definition of personal information in cl 4(1) of Sch 4 of the GIPA Act, the opinions of both the employee and witnesses who are not employees are the personal information of the witnesses as their identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information and opinion.
8. Applying Thomson, personal information has not been revealed even if the personal information is already known to the Applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that personal information would be revealed if disclosed under the GIPA Act as it has not been publicly disclosed and that it would contravene an IPP as no exceptions apply in the circumstances.
9. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's remaining submissions are misconceived as they misconstrue the statutory provisions and legal principles or are not relevant to this Review Application. Those submissions are that:

(1) the Respondent has not protected her personal information

(2) if witnesses are not employed by the Respondent they cannot be engaged in the exercise of public functions

(3) the information does not belong to the witness and so the information cannot be held to be personal information of the employee.

1. In relation to the Applicant's submissions on the Respondent's decision not to undertake formal third-party consultation, that is not a reviewable decision under s 80 of the GIPA Act. As a result, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review it.
2. To the extent that it is relevant to a consideration of the application of clauses to Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that even if third party consultation was conducted and the third parties did not object to the release of their information, the release of their information will have the adverse effect on the Respondent's functions in accordance with cll 1(d) and 1(f) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act. Accordingly having regard to s 54(1)(c) of the GIPA Act, any concerns of witnesses could not reasonably be expected to be relevant to the question of whether there is a public interest consideration against disclosure of the information.
3. The Tribunal gives significant weight to the public interest in protecting the confidential and personal information provided by witnesses to ensure the effective exercise of the Respondent's complaints handling and investigative functions and its ability to ensure the quality and effective delivery of services to the community. The public interest factors against disclosure outweigh the factors in favour of disclosure.

1. The Respondent's original decision of 14 April 2025 identified 32 pages of information as relevant to the scope of the access application. Following the decision being remitted for reconsideration, the Respondent undertook additional searches and identified 82 pages of information relevant to the scope.
2. The Applicant made reference in submissions to "extraneous material obtained outside of the Department's searches but within the system".
3. In reply the Respondent submits that all reasonable searches were undertaken following remittal by the Tribunal. The Respondent filed the affidavit of Mr Nalapo, Open Government, Information and Privacy Senior Advisor - Assistant Manager which set out the search terms used, method of searching and the files and accounts searched following the remitted decision. This includes an email audit conducted by the Respondent's information and Digital Services Unit, a review of hardcopy files, electronic files within OneDrive and Resolver Core databases and additional manual review of email accounts.
4. Mr Nalapo also attests that certain information which the Applicant says was not released to her was in fact released to her.

1. The Tribunal considers that following remittal, the Respondent undertook reasonable searches to locate the information responsive to the Applicant's request in compliance with s 53 of the GIPA Act. The searches outlined in the affidavit of Mr Nalap demonstrate that a variety of methods were used to search relevant systems using logical search terms. In addition, certain information which the Applicant contends was not released was in fact released.
2. Applying the factors in Wojciechowska, this is not a case where other evidence has emerged since the Respondent made its decision, which might tend to prove that the requested information is held by the agency. Other information which the Applicant contends she obtained outside of the GIPA Application is not before the Tribunal and so the Tribunal is not able to give that submission weight.
3. The Tribunal considers that the Respondent made an implied decision that no further information responsive to the Application is held. Having regard to the searches conducted by the Respondent, the Tribunal is satisfied that no further information is held by the Respondent.

1. The public interest factors against disclosure of the witness information outweigh the public interest factors in favour of disclosure.
2. The Respondent undertook reasonable searches following remittal and made an implied decision that no further information responsive to the Application is held.

(1) The Respondent's decision not to disclose the witness information is affirmed.

(2) The Respondent's decision that no further information responsive to the Application is held is affirmed

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.