Williams v Victoria Police

Williams v Victoria Police - [2005] VCAT 2516 - VCAT 2005 case summary — Zoe

[6]

1 Mr Williams' son Corey was involved in a schoolyard fight. Corey sustained some injuries, and it is said he has been left with a permanent scar on his chin as a result. He has received an award of assistance under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996. The fight seems to have been part of a wider dispute between Corey and the other boy involved. As it happens, the schoolyard fight, or part of it, was captured on mobile telephone camera footage taken by another boy.

2 The school investigated the matter. The school's inquiries led to the preparation of a number of reports in the nature of Incident and Notification Reports and to the gathering of a number of handwritten statements from other students and a teacher. As it happens, the school also confiscated the mobile telephone with the camera footage and handed the 'phone to the police. Both students were suspended following the incident.

3 The police investigated the matter. It received from the school the material referred to above, including the mobile 'phone which it received some days later than the written material. The police generated a LEAP Incident Report, cautioned the other student and copied the camera footage on to a CD, before returning the 'phone to its owner.

4 Mr Williams made a request to Victoria Police for access to the documents in its possession. The Police assessed 54 pages of material comprising a LEAP report, statements, a medical report, incident reports, an ESD investigation file and a CD-ROM containing mobile telephone camera footage (referred to earlier).

5 Full access was granted to 30 pages, part to a further 10 pages and full access was denied to the remaining pages and the CD-ROM.

6 On internal review, the decision was made to permit Mr Williams to attend a supervised viewing of the CD-ROM on police premises. Mr Williams has viewed the CD-ROM. As I understand it, his wife and Corey's psychologist have viewed the CD-ROM and Corey himself has had the opportunity to do so.

7 As it happens, Mr Williams also made an application to the Department of Education and Training for documents and was granted access to them in part. Personal information about persons other than Corey had been deleted from documents such as the school's Incident Report. He was denied access to all the student statements. Mr Williams did not seek review of the Department's decision.

8 On 7 June 2005, Mr Williams applied to this Tribunal for review of the decision made by Victoria Police, stating :

[47]

31 The Principal provided information that she had made inquiries of parents, staff and the students affected who are still members of the school community. As a result of her inquiries, she believes they do not wish their personal affairs revealed and wish all their details to remain confidential. She is concerned release will inflame the situation again. She says Mr Williams has behaved in an aggressive manner in the past and has actively tried to involve students in the matter on previous occasions.

32 Returning to Mr Williams and his evidence. His motives and behaviour are relevant considerations when considering whether disclosure is unreasonable. Concerns have been expressed about his behaviour by the Principal, Mr Blaikie and Mr Rowley-Bates. Mr Williams did not challenge that evidence in cross-examination. However, the issue arose squarely later in the proceeding. Mr Williams protested that he was no threat. When letters he had written and his behaviour as reported by the school nurse on the day were put to him, he did not deny those matters but sought to excuse his behaviour by explaining he was upset about his son. His behaviour on the day was clearly threatening. His correspondence is sarcastic in the extreme and the manner in which he conducted himself in the hearing was confrontational and belligerent. I accept the evidence of the witnesses that because of Mr Williams' behaviour they would be concerned if the information was released.

33 What are Mr Williams' reasons for seeking the material? He claims he needs this material because of his desire to pursue matters elsewhere. He claims there is a cover-up by police and by the school. He asserted he was entitled to the information because his son had been assaulted. He wants to take civil action and asserts he is entitled to the information for court action.

34 Weighing Mr Williams' interests with the interest and concerns of others, I am satisfied that the balance clearly falls in favour of the non-disclosure of the student names deleted, for the following reasons.

35 Mr Williams' claims of a cover-up by police were not supported by the outcome of his complaint to ESD which found his complaints about the investigation were unfounded. So far as his claims of a cover-up by the school were concerned, they were not supported by any evidence, but seemed to be based upon Mr Williams' own views about how he perceived the school handled the inquiry.

36 On the other hand, where in these circumstances the school has assured students their names will not be mentioned that is an important factor to consider and which favours non-disclosure. Also I accept the evidence that release of their names would compromise the relationship of trust between the students and the school, which is an important relationship to maintain in any school. Without it, situations such as this, might be less likely to be dealt with effectively.

37 Further, where Mr Williams' past behaviour has been a concern, release of student names is, in my view, even less appropriate, especially when we are concerned with the personal information of children. Balancing all of those matters I am satisfied that release of their names would be unreasonable and I am satisfied that the exemption claimed under s33 is made out in relation to these documents.

[59]

51 Not only does s 35(1) require the information to be communicated in confidence, I also have to be satisfied its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest by reason that disclosure would be reasonably likely to impair the ability of an agency to obtain similar information in the future.

52 Mr Blaikie and Mr Rowley-Bates gave evidence which I accepted about the effect release would have on the school's ability to obtain such information in the future and the importance of a school being able to obtain it in the future. That evidence is set out in paragraphs 29 and 30.

53 I am satisfied that release would be unreasonable in that it would impair the ability of an agency to obtain such information in the future and that it is important for the proper functioning of a school that they conduct such inquiries in an appropriate and confidential manner and so, the second limb of s 35(1)(b) is satisfied.

54 I agree with the observations of Megay SM in Baker's case, and the importance of maintaining the free flow of information in the context of children's welfare. It would be of concern were the school's investigative processes undermined by release of the information.

55 The information in Documents 2 and 9 to 17 (inclusive) is exempt from release under s 35(1)(b) of the Act. Whilst I am satisfied that they are exempt under that section of the Act, that is not the end of the matter. An exemption under that section, unlike an exemption under s33, is subject to what is referred to as "the public interest override" in S50(4) of the Act. However, for that section to apply, it is clear that the public interest must demand or necessitate release and that it is not sufficient that release will satisfy personal grievances or curiosity as appears to be the case here. I am not satisfied that there is anything before me to indicate that release would benefit the wider community or be of "wider social significance". The mere fact that there has been an article in a newspaper is not sufficient to demonstrate a public interest.[5]

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (85 paragraphs)

Williams v Victoria Police (General) [2005] VCAT 2516 (5 December 2005)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)