1. The applicant made an application by letter dated 31 March 2010 directed to the respondent. It was framed in the following way:

(a) Police procedures and policies for Vic Police and Vic police investigative officers to be provided without exception,

(b) The process from when Stuart Latimer and Noelene Ford first wrote my statement after my assault by Victoria police members to how it got to the hand of Fiona Richardson at Fawkner Police Station (the investigating officer in my case). Please provide, names, Ranks and Police station of employment of those who are involved in providing Fiona Richardson at Fawkner this case, in order starting from Stuart Latimer and Noelene Ford.

(c) why was Fiona Richardson vacated from ESD at all, is no longer with ESD,

(d) a digital copy of digital Photos Taken by Stuart Latimer, and George Buchhorn from Avondale Heights police station, to pre-provided on CD, DVD or USB,

(f) Convicted employees of Victoria Police still employed by Victoria Police,

1. The respondent replied by letter dated 1 April 2010. It informed the applicant, firstly, he had not payed a fee of $23.40; secondly, he had not provided any documentary proof of his identity, and thirdly, that the request was too generic in nature for the specific documents being sought to be identified.
2. The applicant made a further application by letter dated 6 April 2010. It was framed in the following way:

George Buchhorn works at Avondale heights police station

And any other police officer not mentioned in relation to my case file.

and if they have an accused, charged and convicted of any criminal act or other before and after becoming Victoria police members to date."

1. The respondent replied by letter dated 1 April 2010.[1] It informed the applicant, firstly, that he had still not payed the application fee; secondly, it again informed him that the request was too generic in nature for the specific documents being sought to be identified, and thirdly, that it would give him a reasonable opportunity to consult with the respondent pursuant to its obligation under section 17 (4) of the Act.
2. The applicant wrote to the respondent by a letter dated 13 April 2010. The applicant enclosed the relevant application fee, and he provided photographic identification. The text of the letter is in substance the same as the applicant's letter dated 6 April 2010.[2]
3. The respondent replied by letter dated 15 April 2010. Essentially, the respondent informed the applicant again that the request was too generic in nature for the specific documents being sought to be identified. It set a deadline of 7 May 2010 for the applicant to clarify the request and identify the specific documents he wished to obtain access to.
4. The applicant telephoned the respondent on 16 April 2010. He spoke to a Ms Joyce van den Hove. She prepared a diary note of that conversation. The substance of the conversation summarised in the diary note is consistent with the letters written to the applicant by the respondent reminding him that the request was too generic. It also records that the applicant did not accept the advice given to him.
5. The applicant wrote to the respondent by letter dated 19 April 2010. In that letter he broadened his request to include:

"I will also request the Victoria Police Manual, ESD Investigation Manual, Victoria Police Policy Manual, Victoria Police Procedures Manual."

1. The respondent wrote to the applicant by letter dated 4 May 2010. It informed the applicant that his request did not comply with section 17 (2) of the Act, and therefore, his application was refused.
2. The applicant then filed the application for review seeking a review of the decision of the respondent dated 4 May 2010.

1. Mr Batskos informed me that there were two issues which the respondent submitted were fatal to the application:
   • firstly, that the request made by the applicant failed to comply with section 17 (2) of the Act.
   • secondly, that if a valid request had been made then time began running when the respondent received the application fee on 14 April 2010. Therefore, a decision had to be made within 45 days (by 29 May 2010) otherwise the failure to make a decision would amount to a deemed refusal. The application for review was filed on 12 May 2010 before the 45 days elapsed. Therefore, there was no deemed refusal, and therefore, no reviewable decision.
   • thirdly, the applicant did not apply for an internal review of the decision under review as required by section 51 (2) of the Act.
2. Mr Batskos submitted that all, but most certainly the third were fatal to the application for review.
3. The applicant submitted that his application did comply with section 17 (2) of the Act. He informed me that he was unaware of section 51 (2). He conceded that he had not applied for an internal review of the decision under review.

1. Section 17 (1) provides that a person wishing to obtain access to a document of an agency can make a request in writing requiring access to a document.
2. Section 17(2) defines what information that person is to provide when making such a request:

"A request shall provide such information concerning the document as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible officer of the agency, or the Minister, as the case may be, to identify the document."

1. Mr Batskos submitted that if the request does not comply with one or more of the requirements of section 17 (2) then there is no valid request. In the absence of a valid request then logically there cannot be a decision to refuse access. It must follow that in the absence of a valid request, and the absence of a decision to refuse access that there is, therefore, no reviewable decision.
2. Section 17 (2) requires the responsible officer to take the following steps when a request is received:
   • whether the applicant has provided information concerning the document for which access is requested.
   • whether the information provided is reasonable to the extent of being necessary for the responsible officer to identify the documents to which access is requested.
3. The serious flaws in the request are as follows:
   • firstly, it requests "all documents" of the kind set out in the body of the request.
   • secondly, paragraph (a) requests everything in the possession of the respondent relevant to procedures and policies for Victoria Police, and relevant to Victoria Police in an investigative role.
   • thirdly, paragraphs (b) and (c) constitute a request for information not documents. The only reference to documents may be the rank and police station of Stuart Latimer and Noelene Ford.
   • fourthly, paragraphs (e)-(i) are unintelligible.
   • Fifthly, the reference to each of the persons in the table is also framed on the basis of "all documents" and in particular in relation to accusations, charges and convictions of those persons both before and after they became members of the Victoria police, and then to any other police officers "not mentioned in relation to my case file" whatever that means.
4. Paragraph (d) is probably a reasonable request. The provision of a photocopy of a photograph is not the provision of a document. The actual document is the photograph not the photocopy of it.
5. It is difficult to imagine what the applicant expected the respondent to do with such his request.
6. The reference to "such information" in the section must mean reasonably specific particulars enabling the proper officer to identify the document which is the subject of the request.
7. The reference to "as is reasonably necessary" qualifies the extent that the information provided is specific enough for the document to be capable of identification.
8. It is not the task of the responsible officer to try to tease out from such a request what the applicant might be getting at. Firstly, for the responsible officer to do that would be a failure on the part of that responsible officer to undertake the statutory task set by section 17 (2), and secondly, the responsible officer might inadvertently provide documents which are not what the applicant was seeking which would inevitably lead to unnecessary and possibly protracted correspondence between the applicant and the responsible officer in an effort to try to work out what is constituted by the request, and at worst the making of an unnecessary application for review.
9. That is not to say that the responsible officer is relieved of any obligation to the applicant where some doubt exists as to what documents are sought by the request.
10. Section 17(3) makes it very clear that assistance must be provided to the applicant when the applicant's request does not comply, and subsection (4) provides that when the request does not comply then the application must not be refused before the applicant is given a reasonable opportunity to consult with the particular agency in order to make a request in a form which does comply.
11. It seems to me that the applicant set the respondent a near impossible task in endeavouring to determine what the request sought in order to provide access to any documents.
12. In Re Borthwick and University of Melbourne [3] Rowlands J observed that whether the information concerning the document is reasonable depends upon the particular case and whether the applicant has provided a sufficiently precise description of the documents sought to permit the respondent, as a matter of practicality, to locate the document. Furthermore, he emphasised that the responsibility rests upon the applicant to strive to define with as much precision as the applicant can what it is he wants.[4]
13. The approach taken by His Honour, which I intend to follow, in relation to section 17 (2) is consistent with other observations relevant to section 17(2): see Penhalluriak v Department of Labour and Industry; [5] Secretary, Department of Treasury and Finance v Kelly,[6] McIntosh v Department of Justice.[7]

Section 75

1. I find that the applicant made a request which did not comply with section 17 (2). The information provided by the applicant, which was necessary for the respondent to identify the documents he sought access to, was unreasonable.
2. I find that efforts were made by the respondent pursuant to subsection (3) and (4) in the discharge of its duty to assist the applicant and to give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to make a request in a form which complied with subsection (2).
3. Therefore, I find that because no valid request was made pursuant to section 17 (2) that it must follow that there is no reviewable decision from which an application for review can lie.
4. Therefore, I dismiss the application for review pursuant to section 75 (1) (a) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 on the grounds that it is misconceived and lacking in substance.

1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis I propose to order that pursuant to section 75 (1) (a) that the applicant's application for review be dismissed.
2. I should add for the sake of completeness that it is unnecessary for me to deal with the other two submissions made by Mr Batskos which he submitted were equally fatal to the applicants application for review.

[1] Mr Batskos informed me that the letter was incorrectly dated. It must have been sent to the applicant on or after 6 April 2010.

[2] The substance of the letter is the same. The formatting was changed, as was some of the text. However, the changes to formatting and text are insignificant.

[3] (1985) 1 VAR 33

[5] Unreported, County Court, Victoria, Lazarus J., 19 December 1983 at 27

[6] [2001] VSCA 246; (2001) 4 VR 595. Ormiston JA observed that the responsibility resting upon the applicant was to apply for specific documents or group of documents, and not for every document in a broad category. The test is rather more strictly expressed than in other decisions of the Tribunal

[7] [2009] VCAT 92. President Justice Ross (then Vice President) referred to Re Borthwick (supra) , however, noting that it was delivered prior to the enactment of section 25A of the Act