Information Commissioner tells Queensland Police to get in line

The performance review report by Information Commissioner Julie Kinross on Queensland Police Service compliance with the Right to Information and Information Privacy acts is making news, particularly her recommendation that QPS better utilise a wealth of information assets for community as well as more traditional purposes.The report singles out the current dearth of published crime statistics recommending  on-line publication rather than an annual statistical review, to inform local communities and promote engagement with the police. QPS failure to attach priority to strategic information management was indicative of a general lack of appreciation of the objects of the RTI act.

The review report provides a valuable template for assessing agency performance in any jurisdiction, focussing on:

• agency governance (leadership, governance mechanisms, information management including pro-active identification and release of information holdings, policies,procedures, delegations and roles and responsibilities of key personnel and training)

• agency community consultation and engagement strategies (this included contact with a group of stakeholders identified by the Information Commissioner not QPS, and must have come as something of a surprise to those involved)

• the adoption of push model strategies, for example, publication schemes, disclosure logs and administrative access schemes

•  compliance with legislative based requirements of the RTI and IP Acts for handling access and amendment applications; and

•  accountability and performance measurement systems.

The report notes QPS has ticked many compliance boxes such as having an information champion and an information steering committee, and has made progress on implementation in a number of respects. But the strong message is that the sleeves need to be rolled up regarding practical steps to lift the game to publish more information and improve processing of applications. The report doesn't give a rating but it's a "C" at best, noting many significant weaknesses and non-compliance in the way things are done. Some of the 28 recommendations gave QPS two weeks to get things sorted.  All recommendations are supported by QPS with those for immediate attention already actioned (Appendix 6). 

The polite but firm and steely tone is a contrast in some respects with the NSW Information Commissioner's report in July on compliance with the corresponding law by the NSW Police Force. While that report reached a similar conclusion-that the police could and should do much better- urgency was missing and police responses to some recommendations amounted to telling the Commissioner to go jump.

Privacy issues when the police come calling

The report by Queensland Privacy Commissioner Linda Mathews following an own-motion investigation into police access to go-card data in the electronic ticketing system used in South East Queensland by Translink discovered no evidence of wrongdoing. Under the Information Privacy Act Translink had a discretion to respond by disclosing personal information to a law enforcement authority.  However when a request was made Translink had simply taken the police at their word. Although the Commissioner found all police requests were for legitimate purposes, Translink failed to satisfy itself on reasonable grounds as required by the act, that the disclosure was necessary:
• for the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of criminal offences or other breaches of the law, or
• to lessen or prevent a serious threat to the life, health, safety or welfare of an individual or to public health, safety or welfare.

Translink and Queensland Police have already made changes to procedures. The Commissioner makes a number of recommendations (Chapter 10) for further improving Police and Translink privacy practices.

I have a sneaking suspicion Translink is not unique in Queensland or elsewhere where similar laws apply for that matter. There may be a tendency in some agencies to be overly responsive to requests for information by the police that don't involve the use of their coercive powers, without adequate internal processes overseen by someone familiar with privacy law requirements.

In pursuit of NSW Police policy on pursuits.

On reading this report by Geesche Jacobsen in the Sydney Morning Herald, I was thinking the NSW Police might have had a point that some information about pursuit policy needed to be withheld under the new GIPA act on grounds that disclosure of eight of nine reasons for terminating a pursuit would compromise a ''lawful method and technique employed by the NSW Police Force … to detect and investigate contraventions of the criminal law.''

Until I googled the subject and found this New Zealand Police Review published two weeks ago Police Pursuits Policy [PDF 588KB] that includes an international literature review, and details of various risk assessment models used around the world, including in Australian states, to guide police decisions on continuation and termination of pursuits. There appear to be plenty of other published details of policy in Australia as well, including the ACT review in 2007 referred to in that article.

There is no hint of anything that needed to be censored in the New Zealand review report, and full details are included about best practice approaches (the SOWETO risk management model) taken in Australia, presumably in NSW, and the US, UK and other comparable countries.

The NSW Police GIPA decision to refuse access to parts of the policy seems unnecessarily cautious and overly defensive in the circumstances.

NSW Police score second front page

Yesterday's Telegraph front page is followed today by Taser abuse covered up by police in the Sydney Morning Herald, with this account of the year long Freedom of Information battle to access the report. Dylan Welch says the Administrative Decisions Tribunal "quickly decided" the Herald deserved access, although in the absence of a decision on the Tribunal website, sounds like a cave-in after five preliminary conferences. Newspapers might keep the Information Commissioner busy in the light of this concluding comment:

But this success is one among dozens of defeats experienced by newspapers fighting against public officials broadly disinclined to provide the truth behind their decisions.

Victorian Police and personal information

Do they, don't they, will they, won't they? What goes Mark 2,3...

The Age editorial today wonders about Victoria Police practices, agreements to hand over a wide range of information to private corporations about people involved in protests, the privacy concerns, whether a list of those agreements will be made public, and possible political pressure being exerted on the Commissioner on this issue. His latest position- that information about agreements could only be released under freedom of information legislation- probably means an application was on the desk first thing this morning.

Police and personal information-what goes?

The Victorian Police practice of agreeing to hand over personal information to private sector organisations undertaking major infrastructure projects, in the name of public safety, has been under the hammer all week since Paul Austin in The Age broke the story on Saturday about an agreement with AquaSure, the private consortium building Victoria's desal plant. Austin reported the memorandum of understanding says the Police "will release law enforcement data" to AquaSure:

"Law enforcement data may take the form of any text, images, audio and video, may be stored on computing devices, in hard copy, or on other storage media, and includes (but is not limited to) data related to individuals, aggregated data, written reports and correspondence, memoranda, police diaries, official notebooks, running sheets and other data repositories."

While the first reaction was for everyone involved to defend the deal, with reassurances that "the sharing of information will be done without breaching privacy laws", as the week rolled on the Privacy Commissioner who had not been consulted showed a keen interest (Victoria Police to brief Privacy Commissioner on protestors' files), the Police had a rethink about what they had agreed to, and Austin reported on the "political storm" that had ministers including the Premier on the back foot.

No-one has explained publicly, the early conclusion that information sharing of this kind was in accordance with privacy laws, but the Victorian Information Privacy Act (Section 13 and IPP 2 in Schedule 1) includes several significant "outs" that permit law enforcement agencies to disclose personal information in certain circumstances. Maybe even these weren't as accommodating as first thought.

Just a thought-what is police practice in this area elsewhere around the country? In NSW for example law enforcement agencies are excluded from compliance with information protection principles except in connection with their administrative and educative functions (Section 27 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act). What if anything goes, here and in other jurisdictions?

Blanket exclusions and exemptions rarely justified

Exclusions of some government agencies entirely or in respect of certain functions from freedom of information laws, and exemptions for classes of documents with no requirement to find harm from disclosure or to consider public interest factors, leave a significant hole in the principles of open, transparent and accountable government that underpin the law. They can rarely be justified.

A thought prompted by this Sydney Morning Herald report of a comment by the compliance monitor, the Inspector, of the Police Integrity Commission, in a letter to a parliamentary committee:

Mr Moss expressed "grave disquiet" about the suppression orders in this case, "which continues to keep the relevant issues shielded from public scrutiny, despite the obvious issues of public interest and commission accountability involved"

The matter relates to the exercise of Commission powers under the relevant act. Mr Moss QC thinks the Commission has not had appropriate regard to the principle of open justice. FOI wouldn't be much help either if you sought information held by the Commission as it (and a long list of others) is excluded from the Act in respect of documents concerning corruption prevention, complaint handling, investigative and report functions. No change is proposed in the Open Government Information Bill Exposure Draft. In fact the current exclusion remains and other information held by the Commission is likely to be non-accessible because of secrecy provisions in the Police Integrity Act which are specifically listed in the Draft as measures that trump the disclosure provisions of the OGI Act.

Of course highly sensitive information should be protected against disclosure where this would prejudice an investigation or inquiry, reveal a confidential source, endanger life or safety etc. Exemptions in the FOI Act and proposed provisions in the OGI Act justifiably protect such information.However blanket exclusions, and widely drawn exemptions-like powers to issue suppression orders- if used improperly can have other consequences, undesirable for broader public interests and agency accountability.

Police wall more formidable than APEC security.

The"Great Wall" that divided Sydney during the 2007 APEC Summit cost $2million, and most memorably couldn't keep the Chasers out.But the most intriguing aspect of the report by Edmund Tadros in The Australian yesterday was this:

"Police have been fighting a Freedom of Information request for the full price tag of the fence for more than 16 months. It was only after the intervention of the NSW Ombudsman that the force relented and released the costings to news.com.au."

Just a reminder:Premier Rees on 24 October 2008:

"My clear message to the New South Wales public sector is this: The public has a right to know."

Exemption arguments dry up on the steps of the Tribunal.

Since July last year I have been representing the Sydney Morning Herald in two appeals to the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal against decisions by the NSW Police to refuse access under the Freedom of Information Act to the names of licensed premises and other details of incidents recorded in a data-base developed as part of the Alcohol Linking Program.

The appeals-one application goes back to 2006,the other to an application for similar information made last year- were scheduled for hearing in March after much procedural delay. The Herald withdrew both last week after the Police agreed to release all the information in dispute. The Australian Hotels Association (NSW) who had been joined in the proceedings as an interested party and who claimed its members business interests were involved had withdrawn from the case a couple of months earlier.

The SMH reported on what was revealed on Saturday-here's the quick summary:

"Assaults involving drinkers from pubs and clubs are running at levels up to twice those of official government figures, according to information contained in a confidential state-wide police database.The database of 77,000 crimes and other incidents, obtained by the Herald after a three-year fight using freedom-of-information laws, details 13,086 separate assaults involving drinkers from pubs and clubs in the 11 months to last July."

The related coverage section in the link includes the complete 9mb data-base with information on all the hotels and clubs involved, and separately other details ranking the clubs and hotels according to the number and type of incidents, and the levels of intoxication of the person concerned. Check out your locals!

Matthew Moore in his column on Saturday gave some background on the applications and the Police exemption claims: that the names of the venues and other details of incidents, if disclosed, could be expected to prejudice investigation of possible contraventions of the law and prejudice the effectiveness of methods for preventing or detecting possible contraventions of the law; and that the names of the venues was information concerning business affairs of the clubs and hotels and disclosure would have an unreasonable adverse effect on those affairs or prejudice the future supply of this type of information

The Police submitted three affidavits, each replacing the other, from officers involved in the program (the first officer went to work for the AHA after his affidavit had been lodged, the second went on long sick leave and wouldn't be back until after the hearing originally scheduled for January) outlining why in their opinion the Program would collapse through lack of co-operation from hotels if this information was disclosed; why they wouldn't be able to investigate incidents or conduct secret audits of named hotels; and why the game would be up for the Random Breath Testing program because motorists would twig to likely places where they would encounter a RBT unit. NSW Police also supported three affidavits from publicans who pointed out instances where the data unfairly had worked against hotels that reported incidents on or nearby their premises, and who claimed that the value of their hotels would suffer if this information linking them to incidents was disclosed. (The RBT and business affairs claims were shelved towards the end)

We were prepared to argue that the Police evidence didn't substantiate the claims of adverse effects of disclosure on their investigations or methods, particularly in the light of changes in NSW Government policy enacted last year, including the public naming of the 48 top problem hotels, which meant that any adverse effect on co-operation from hotels had already occurred. At this stage some of the information is almost three years old. We submitted that the Police had not made the case that information would dry up, given the fact that no-one is compelled to tell the Police when questioned where they had last had a drink. The business affairs exemption claim had always seemed particularly weak as the information revealed nothing remotely like the sensitive commercial information contemplated by the exemption.

We had also been prepared to argue that should the Tribunal find for the Police on the exemptions regarding adverse impact on their operations, the public interest override powers should be exercised to order disclosure, and relied on affidavits in support regarding the importance of access by a community activist on alcohol related issues, a local government leader and a prominent academic with research interests in this field.That was until two decisions by the Tribunal Appeal Panel in December that suggested the Tribunal had no such powers when cabinet documents and law enforcement documents were concerned.We were still developing arguments to contest this when out of the blue the Police indicated they were prepared to release everything as long as the Sydney Morning Herald agreed to withdraw and not seek an order for costs. After three years the Herald was happy to do the deal.

Just how many last minute concessions of this kind by government agencies take place in the shadows of the Tribunal steps we don't know as the Tribunal does not publish statistics or comment on the topic. My bet is quite a lot- all at great expense to the NSW taxpayer who funds the agency preparations, often as in this case, involving a major law firm which doesn't come cheap; to the applicants who initiate the proceedings; and to the taxpayer again who pays for the time spent by Tribunal members on matters that end up resolving themselves.

Everyone concerned would be better off if, rather than seeing the light at half a minute to midnight at the Tribunal, agencies improved judgment right back at the beginning of the process reflecting the public right to know about programs carried out ostensibly for our benefit and about what is being achieved, qualified only where there are real prospects of harm to important public and legitimate personal or business interests.

Privacy and the DNA of the innocent.

The police practice in England and Wales of keeping indefinitely a database of fingerprints and DNA, including information on persons acquitted of any crime, has fallen foul of the European Charter of Rights on privacy grounds, with the European Court finding last week that Britain had "overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation" in striking a balance between individual rights and public interests."

Media reports here (like this from the Sydney Morning Herald) were based on wire service reports and didn't draw any connections with the situation in Australia. As the Federal Government kicks off a national consultation on whether we should have a bill or charter of rights there are questions about practices here regarding the collection and retention of this type of information.

The Crim Track Agency website doesn't say much about the National Criminal Investigation DNA database so who knows whether DNA samples from people found not guilty is retained.

And a dig around doesn't throw much light on what the situation is with the states.We know that in June 2006 South Australian Premier Rann was very gung ho about police retaining all DNA samples. So was NSW Police Commissioner Ken Moroney in July 2007. The Victorian Police followed suit in September last year.

In July this year, according to 9 News "under current (WA) laws, people suspected of an offence can request their DNA be destroyed if after two years they have not been charged or are found not guilty."

That's about all I can find. A story here somewhere for an intrepid reporter.

Getting FOI reform in the fast track

At the end of July I made some suggestions for action Senator Faulkner could take to shift things along on the Federal Freedom of Information reform front apart from the commitment to two phase reform sometime down the track. At that time and probably still, Senator Faulkner thought those complaining about slow progress were "ungenerous critics." My list appears to have made not the slightest impression on anyone in Canberra. So no illusions here about influence but what about a list of initiatives NSW Premier Nathan Rees could consider if he wants to keep the ball rolling in his plan to end excessive secrecy in NSW?

Matthew Moore in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday kicked things off suggesting the Premier could push agencies to respond positively to Ombudsman recommendations following the investigation of complaints regarding FOI, and provide guidance on what he expects to be disclosed publicly as a matter of routine, starting with the cost of ministerial trips and the cost-benefit analysis of major government spending commitments such as the staging a V8 car race at Sydney Olympic Park. On the first point, the Ombudsman's Annual report reveals 171 positive outcomes from 190 completed investigations in the year to 30 June, so there are a few from last year reluctant to accept the Ombudsman's wisdom. On the second,for starters get up on the web the register of interests of members of parliament, government grants made to organisations to carry out functions on behalf of the government, and inspection reports on food standards in restaurants, schools and hospitals.

As to other possibilities:

Designate someone with standing and clout (with no connection with the dark arts of the past) to act with your authority to turn things on their head in this area, as you explained your intention last week. Ask the Ombudsman to have his review report on your desk promptly, and in any event to let you have a first report on policy and public management issues by 1 January.

Tell Education and Health there is to be no more foot-dragging on the publication of information about performance in the schools and health systems and that NSW is to stand with, not against, Federal ministers in this endeavour.

Issue a policy directive that documents should be released unless there is clear harm to government, individual or business interests. Get rid of all the wishy-washy and in some cases questionable guidance in the Manual issued last year by the Premier's Department that provides a straw to hang onto for those looking for an excuse to knock back a request.

Put some performance measures in place and make it clear performance- particularly timely access- in this area is the responsibility of a senior officer in every agency. As the Ombudsman has pointed out NSW Police appaear to have systemic problems.

Tell agencies that in assessing charges the Government sees a public interest in use of the FOI Act to access documents concerning the conduct of government functions, or that will contribute to debate about matters of public concern, and that charges should not stand in the way of access to these type of documents.

Find out what happened after Morris Iemma acknowledged shortcomings (I use the word loosely) in the disclosure of government contracts on the web, as has been required by law since January 2007, and get things sorted so that local councils are subject to a similar requirement from 1 January 2009.

Check what sort of public money, time and energy is going into defending in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal questionable FOI determinations by agencies to refuse access to documents and convince agencies to pull the plug on those that aren't necessary in a government no longer to be described as the secret state.Ditto regarding any rearguard actions currently in the courts where government agencies are contesting Tribunal decisions.Ditto for complaints to the Ombudsman that haven't yet been investigated.

Go and talk to the next meeting of FOI officers from government agencies who meet in the Parliament House Theatrette on 12 November and tell them your expectations- this group meets every few months and has done so since 1989.It would be a first - none of your predecessors have ever attended a meeting

Whew, all this before getting moving on a new act early in 2009!

Good luck.

A quiet approach to important FOI amendment in Victoria

The Age reported yesterday that an undercover officer from the police security intelligence group had infiltrated several activist groups including the Stop the War Coalition, Animal Liberation Victoria and Unity for Peace. The undercover agent also played a role planning this year's Palm Sunday peace rally and attended organising meetings with church and activist groups.The report included this:

"At the request of police, the State Government quietly amended the Freedom of Information Act in 2006 to prevent any document created by the police covert and intelligence unit from being released. This means people may not be able to access their personal files created by this branch of police."

The legislation that amended the Freedom of Information Act didn't go through too quietly- only parts of it did.

As the Attorney General told Parliament on 6 April, the Terrorism (Community Protection) Further Amendment Bill 2006 was all about " the state and national response to the threat posed by terrorism to the Australian community", and was "just one of a number of nationwide initiatives including engagement with various communities to eliminate the causes of terrorist activity". Not surprisingly it attracted the attention of members of parliament with speakers from both sides. But neither the Attorney General nor any of the other members who spoke in the Legislative Assembly made any reference to excluding from the FOI Act documents held by the Intelligence and Covert Support Department of the police force.

Only part of the bill was to amend the FOI Act.Here is what the Attorney General said on this aspect of the legislation in the second reading speech in the Legislative Assembly:

The bill also amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to clarify a number of technical and interpretative matters. Firstly, the definition of document in that act has been amended to ensure that the definition includes copies, reproductions or duplicates of a document and any part of a copy, reproduction or duplicate.

A technical amendment to section 25 of that act clarifies that the deletion of material from a document that would be reasonably regarded as not relevant to the subject matter of a request. This amendment simply reflects the current legal understanding of that act. An interpretative provision, clause 19 of the bill, will make clear that a document can be the subject of more than one exemption under the Freedom of Information Act at any one point of time. Again, this provision clearly establishes what is the well understood operation of the law in Victoria.

The amendments to section 29A of the Freedom of Information Act will extend the operation of this exemption provision to include documents created by the counter-terrorism coordination and emergency management department of the Victorian police force.

This provision will be retrospective in operation, however, I believe that honourable members will share the government's view that it is simply not appropriate, or indeed wise, that such material should be accessible under the state's freedom of information processes. Additionally, the bill makes clear that documents that are risk management plans of declared essential services under the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act or documents of a training exercise for declared essential services under the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act are also exempt documents for Freedom of Information Act purposes.

A further change (which is also reflected in the proposed amendments to the Public Records Act), is that exempt documents, as set out in section 29A, now expressly includes those documents whose disclosure could endanger the security of premises including land, building, places and vehicles.

"This change is consistent with the freedom of information legislation in New South Wales and public records legislation in Queensland and is intended to clarify the situation in relation to documents that relate to important state sites and buildings."

That was it from the Attorney on that subject, although the explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill may have been more comprehensive. Several Opposition speakers in debate on 4 May commented on the FOI changes and noted that some of the amendments to the FOI act went beyond those necessary to prevent terrorism.

No- one other than the Attorney General made any reference to the changes to Section 29 and neither he nor any other speaker mentioned an amendment that had the effect of including new subsection in Section 31 of the FOI Act- the law enforcement exemption-which provides:

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section, a document is an exempt document if it is a document created by the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence or (whether before or after the commencement of section 22 of the Terrorism (Community Protection) (Further Amendment) Act 2006) by the Intelligence and Covert Support Department of the police force of Victoria."

It all points up the need for close scrutiny of the fine detail of legislation and raises another issue: the justification for provisions in any of our freedom of information acts that have the effect of conferring blanket exempt status on all documents held or created by particular government agencies.

It's not just the Victorian act and not just police services that enjoy these generous exemptions.In NSW there is a long list (in Schedule 2 of the Act) of types of documents that are exempt because they relate to particular functions of specified agencies.When it comes to the Police in that state, documents created by the former Information and Intelligence Centre, the former State Intelligence Group, the Counter Terrorist Co-ordinationCommand, the former Protective Security Group, the former Special Branch, the former Bureau of Criminal Intelligence are all automatically exempt.

All the FOI acts include exemptions that cover information that should not be released because of the harm that would result including to the conduct of police functions in carrying out law enforcement and anti terrorist activity.Blanket exemptions for all documents of a certain kind put a large and unacceptable hole in the principle of accountability that underpins FOI legislation. There should be a compelling case made out for any such exemption.

In this instance the exemption for documents created by the Intelligence and Covert Support Department of the Victorian Police slipped through parliament very quietly, with the Attorney General aiding that cause.

Ombudsman forced NSW Police convictions disclosure

The Daily Telegraph report by Kelvin Bissett and Gemma Jones today about members (no names) of the NSW Police who have a criminal record is based on documents released in response to a Freedom of Information application. In the event you thought it suggests a new spirit of openness, there is this, buried in the fine print:

"The list of convictions, which police claimed at first did not exist, was released after an appeal to the Ombudsman."

Update: a similar request in the UK resulted in this report yesterday in The Observer- 800 police arrested in the two years to August 2008. Given the recent nature of the information released, and no mention of the need to seek the intercession of the umpire there was clearly less resistance to disclosure there.

BOTPA strikes often

"Because of the Privacy Act" gets a workout frequently in all sorts of contexts to explain why something can't be done, sometimes with good reason, sometimes not. There has been a bit of an outbreak in "BOTPA" today:

• In South Australia, details of all members of parliament traffic offences cannot be released because of privacy laws, but a Liberal Party member has fessed up to four speeding offences that led to the loss of his license.
• The Police Association in Victoria says that a policy requirement that police provide routine disclosure of information about "improper" friends, families and associates to the Police Service, would breach privacy and human rights laws. Hullo?
• With Dr. Patel sitting in a cell in Oregon, the Federal Government has halted a review of checks on foreign doctors visas after state health departments challenged the Immigration Department's right to check records held by state medical boards. The NSW Health Minister cites privacy considerations as a stumbling block. Hullo again?

But the Privacy Act isn't a problem for Australian sports doping authorities who have been checking the Medicare prescription records of athletes to see if they have been taking banned substances. Now that's a relief!

South Australian Police lose the file and the plot

While the Victorian Police have their heads up after grabbing Mr. Mokbel in Greece, their South Australian colleagues have their heads down after a major theft of crime investigation files from an unattended police vehicle. The files ended up with a 'bikie gang' and apparently included the names and contact details of dozens of police and police informants.

It's touched off a major fuss about the handling of information by the Police with calls for an independent inquiry about how all this came to pass.

Tony Soprano where are you?

As we have commented previously, its a great mystery how few data thefts come to light in Australia. Does it mean they don't occur often, or just that we never get to hear much about them?

In the US, data about more than 155million people has been lost or hacked since January 2005 according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

Maybe something to do with the absence here (but not in many US states) of a statutory obligation to inform people about data security breaches that affect their personal information.

Unfortunately the informers might have more to worry about than a loss of privacy.

NZ privacy pay out for police

According to this report "Police lose landmark job privacy case", New Zealand Police have had an award of $12,500 in damages made against them in the Human Rights Review Tribunal for a breach of privacy.

The Police had passed on information about the plaintiff to an employer in the course of a requested background check that he had been charged with indecent assault in 1992. However, he had been discharged by the trial judge and his name had been suppressed from the record. The Tribunal found a breach of the privacy principle requiring information released to be accurate, current, complete and relevant. The applicant had authorised the vetting, but did not think the failed court case would be mentioned.

It turns out that NZ Police keep a little known informal file of "notings", as opposed to criminal convictions, recorded on the National Intelligence Database. The Human Rights proceedings director said the case was the first of its kind regarding the Police database. Apparently individuals can ask for copies of their file notings but some information, for example that which identifies informants, could be withheld.

The decision in the case hasn't yet appeared in the published decisions of the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

Does anyone know about Australian Police "noting" practices? For reasons that have never been adequately explained NSW Police are not subject to NSW privacy legislation except in respect of their administrative and educative functions.

Thanks for PogoWasRight.org and stuff.co.nz for the leads