Source: https://www.oic.qld.gov.au/annotated-legislation/foi/part-3/division-2/42-matter-relating-to-law-enforcement-or-public-safety/section-421a/key-published-decisions-applying-section-421a-foi-act
Timestamp: 2020-07-14 22:53:44
Document Index: 412645889

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 7']

Key published decisions applying Section 42(1A) FOI Act | Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland
Part 1 Preliminary (1-17)
End navigation for Part 1 Preliminary (1-17) section
Part 2 Publication of certain documents and information (18-20)
End navigation for Part 2 Publication of certain documents and information (18-20) section
Part 3 Access to documents (21-52A)
Beginning navigation for Part 3 Access to documents (21-52A) section
Division 1 Access (21-35)
Division 1A Fees and charges (35A-35E)
Division 2 Exempt matter (36-50)
Beginning navigation for Division 2 Exempt matter (36-50) section
36 Cabinet matter
37 Executive Council matter
38 Matter affecting relations with other governments
39 Matter relating to investigation by ombudsman, reviews by Service Delivery and Performance Commission or audits by auditor-general etc.
40 Matter concerning certain operations of agencies
41 Matter relating to deliberative processes
42 Matter relating to law enforcement or public safety
Beginning navigation for 42 Matter relating to law enforcement or public safety section
Section 42(1)
Section 42(1A)
Beginning navigation for Section 42(1A) section
Relevance to the RTI Act
Overview of Section 42(1A) FOI Act
Application of Section 42(1A) FOI Act
Key published decisions applying Section 42(1A) FOI Act
End navigation for Section 42(1A) section
Section 42(2)
Section 42(3A)
End navigation for 42 Matter relating to law enforcement or public safety section
42AA Matter created for ensuring security or good order of corrective services facility
42A Matter relating to national or State security
43 Matter affecting legal proceedings
44 Matter affecting personal affairs
45 Matter relating to trade secrets, business affairs and research
46 Matter communicated in confidence
47 Matter affecting the economy of State
47A Matter relating to investment incentive scheme
48 Matter to which secrecy provisions of enactments apply
49 Matter affecting financial or property interests
50 Matter disclosure of which would be contempt of Parliament or contempt of court
End navigation for Division 2 Exempt matter (36-50) section
Division 2A Children (50A)
Division 3 Consultation (51)
Division 4 Internal review (52-52A)
End navigation for Part 3 Access to documents (21-52A) section
Part 4 Amendment of information (53-60)
End navigation for Part 4 Amendment of information (53-60) section
Part 5 External review of decisions (72-101)
End navigation for Part 5 External review of decisions (72-101) section
Part 5A Office of the Information Commissioner (101A-101W)
End navigation for Part 5A Office of the Information Commissioner (101A-101W) section
Part 6 Miscellaneous (102-109)
End navigation for Part 6 Miscellaneous (102-109) section
Part 7 Transitional provisions (111-125)
End navigation for Part 7 Transitional provisions (111-125) section
Godwin and Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 17 January 2011)
The applicant sought access to certain documents relating to a mining accident. The Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (Department) refused access to three pages of a relevant interview transcript. [2]
The Assistant Commissioner noted that the information would be exempt under section 42(1A) of the FOI Act if: [5]
the information consisted of information given in the course of an investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of the law; and
the information was given under compulsion under an Act that abrogated the privilege against self-incrimination.
Was the information given in the course of an investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of the law?
The Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that the information was given in the course of an investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of the law. The issue for determination was whether the second requirement was satisfied. [6]
Was the information given under compulsion under an Act that abrogated the privilege against self-incrimination?
Information given under compulsion
Here, the information was only given after the investigators invoked section 159 of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) (CMSHA). [17]
159 Person must answer question about serious accident or high potential incident
(1) This section applies if a person refuses to answer a question about a serious accident or high potential incident asked by an officer.
(2) If the officer requires the person to answer the question, the officer must advise the person of the following—
(a) that if the answer might incriminate the person, the person may claim, before giving the answer, that giving the answer might incriminate the person;
(b) the effect of making the claim on the admissibility of the answer and any information, document or other thing obtained as a direct or indirect result of the person giving the answer as evidence in any proceeding against the person.
(3) The person must answer the question, unless the person has a reasonable excuse.
(6) Neither the answer nor any information, document or other thing obtained as a direct or indirect result of the person giving the answer is admissible in any proceeding against the person, other than a proceeding in which the falsity or misleading nature of the answer is relevant.
The Assistant Commissioner concluded that: [17]
while the interviewee did not expressly state that he refused to answer questions prior to section 159 CMSHA being invoked, the officers may have reasonably concluded that the interviewee's answers effectively amounted to a refusal to fully answer their questions
the interviewing officers invoked section 159 of the CMSHA in order to compel the interviewee to answer further questions; and
the interviewing officers explained the operation of section 159 of the CMSHA in a manner which the interviewee demonstrated he understood by restating that he was now required to answer questions, but the answers would be inadmissible in court and could not be used against him.
Under an Act that abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination
The Assistant Commissioner concluded that section 159 CMSHA was sufficient to abrogate the interviewee's privilege against self-incrimination under the section and that the information was only given as a result of the Act. [17]
Accordingly, the information was exempt under section 42(1A) of the FOI Act.
The Assistant Commissioner also determined that minor non-compliance (the investigating officers invoked the CMSHA prior to the interviewee expressly refusing to answer questions) with the CMSHA would not deprive an informant the safeguard offered by section 159(6) of the CMSHA. The Assistant Commissioner considered that it is necessary to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of persons not to be endangered by the actions of others. [23] Therefore, the right to abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination is not lost merely because the parties involved fail to strictly comply with the requirements of the section of the relevant Act. [28]
Price and Department of Police (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 29 June 2007)
The applicant applied to the Queensland Police Service (QPS) for access to all documents related to 'my complaints/myself to police'. The Assistant Commissioner considered whether matter consisting of a summary (précis) of a QPS interview and the corresponding tape recording of that interview, was exempt under section 42(1A) of the FOI Act.
The Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that the key issues regarding the application of section 42(1A) of the FOI Act are: [74]
whether the information was given in the course of an investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of the law
whether the information was given under compulsion
whether a claim of privilege is available; and
whether the information was given under an Act that abrogated the privilege against self-incrimination.
She noted that each of these must be established in order for the matter to qualify for exemption under section 42(1A) of the FOI Act. [75]
Contravention or possible contravention of the law
The term 'contravention or possible contravention of the law' was considered by the Information Commissioner in T and Queensland Health.9 In that decision, the Information Commissioner considered that contraventions or possible contraventions of the law need not be confined to the criminal law and there was no reason why the words should not be read as extending to any law which imposes an enforceable legal duty to do or refrain from doing something.
In the course of an investigation
The Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that the QPS investigation was an investigation of a breach of discipline. Accordingly, the first limb of section 42(1A) FOI Act was satisfied. [83-85]
Here, the information was given under the Police Service and Administration Act 1990 (Qld) (PSA Act). Under the PSA Act, Human Resources Management Manual (HRM Manual), the effect of the Police Commissioner's direction required an officer to answer questions. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that the information was given under compulsion. [87-89]
Whether a claim of privilege against self-incrimination is available
The Assistant Commissioner noted the legal distinction between the privilege against self-incrimination and the penalty privilege. [90] She recognised recent High Court decisions which held that the penalty privilege is not available in non-judicial matters.10 The Assistant Commissioner considered that the nature of the disciplinary action outlined in the PSA Act was punitive in nature and therefore fell within the scope of the penalty privilege. [100] Accordingly, the third limb of section 42(1A) FOI Act was not satisfied as there was no valid claim for privilege. [103]
Even though the third limb of the test was not satisfied, the Assistant Commissioner for the sake of completeness considered the fourth limb of the test. [105]
She noted the High Court decision in Pyneboard Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commissioner,11 which held that in the absence of express words of abrogation, whether the privilege is abrogated by implication will depend upon 'the language and character of the provision and the purpose which it is designed to achieve'. Here, there were no provisions of the PSA Act or the regulations that expressly abrogated the privilege against self-incrimination. However, as noted above, parts of the PSA Act and the HRM Manual operated to require an officer to answer questions as directed, which may amount to an implied abrogation of the privilege. [108]
The Assistant Commissioner considered the case of Police Service Board and Another v Morris and Martin (Morris),12 which considered legislation that had a similar operation to the Queensland PSA Act and HRM Manual. In that case, refusal to answer questions following an order to do so resulted in disciplinary action. The High Court found that the character and object of the relevant legislative provisions and the nature of the police force provide a sufficient indication that there existed an intention that the privilege against self-incrimination should be abrogated. [109] Following the decision in Morris, the Assistant Commissioner considered that in circumstances where a police officer will be exposed to a risk of self-incrimination, it may be that a police officer's right to claim privilege against self-incrimination is abrogated by implication. [110] However, the Assistant Commissioner made no specific finding on the issue as it was not necessary for the purposes of the decision. [110]
Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that section 42(1A) of the FOI Act did not apply to the relevant matter. [111]
9T and Queensland Health (1994) 1 QAR 386.
10Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commissioner (2002) 213 CLR 543.
11Pyneboard Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commissioner (1983) 152 CLR 328 at paragraph 341.
12Police Service Board and Another v Morris and Martin (1985) 58 ALR 1.