I3C1ST and Department of Community Safety
(310629, 30 August 2011)
Section 67(1) of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) – grounds on which access may be refused – Sections 47(3)(a) and schedule 3 section 10(1)(i) of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) – disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice a system or procedure for the protection of persons, property or the environment
The applicant made an application to the Department of Community Safety (Department) under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) (IP Act) for access to emails between the General Manager of the prison in which he is an inmate and the Deputy Commissioner of Custodial Operations of the Department.
The Department located a chain of emails comprising two pages and decided to refuse access to the emails under section 67(1) of the IP Act and sections 47(3)(a) and 48 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (RTI Act) on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice a system or procedure for the protection of persons, property or environment.
During the course of the external review, the Department agreed to release most of the email chain to the applicant but maintained its claim that disclosure of the remaining information in the emails (Information in Issue) could reasonably be expected to prejudice a system or procedure for the protection of persons, property or the environment.
After considering the relevant submissions and the requirements of schedule 3 section 10(1)(i) of the RTI Act, the Right to Information Commissioner decided that the Information in Issue related to:
· the systems for accessing intelligence and assessing whether a prisoner is an escape risk; and
· the nature of the intelligence concerning the applicant to which the Deputy Commissioner had regard in
making a determination about his classification.
The Right to Information Commissioner was satisfied that disclosure of the Information in Issue could reasonably be expected to:
· reveal the intelligence systems used by the Department to gather information for the protection of persons;
and
· prejudice these systems by reducing their effectiveness.
On that basis, the Right to Information Commissioner decided that access to the Information in Issue should be refused as its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice a system for the protection of persons.
