1. The DPP understands ST’s challenge to Document A’s admissibility to be that they contend Document A falls within s 130(4)(f) to relate to “matters of state” for section 130(1) to apply. The DPP deny this.
2. The DPP acknowledges if the public interest in admitting a document relating to “matters of state” is outweighed by the public interest in preserving secrecy/confidentiality, the court can prevent its disclosure. The DPP submits the facts do not support this.
GROUNDS OF ARGUMENT
GROUND 1 — Document A does not satisfy section 130(4)(f) to relate to “matters of state” for the public interest immunity (PII) to be enlivened
3. The DPP acknowledges PII claims are either a class or contents claim. The DPP submits neither is available. …show more content…
Per Lord Reid in Conway v Rimmer, these claims are available for “…documents concerned with policy-making within departments”, i.e. cabinet documents/discussions.
5. Document A was prepared by ST “to deal with staffing shortages”, thus wholly unrelated to government policy-making, so class claim is unavailable.
Ground 1.2 - No valid contents claim available- Document A’s disclosure would not prejudice the government to enliven PII
6. The DPP submits that despite recent Victorian authority, Ryan v State of Victoria, arguably broadening what was previously considered “…proper functioning of government”, Document A still “fails at the threshold“ so a contents claim is unavailable.
7. Previously, per Royal Women’s Hospital, documents/information would only satisfy section 130(4)(f) if they related to “decision-making ‘at the highest levels of government’”.
8. However, per Tate JA in Ryan, “…the proper functioning of government’ in the context of para (f) of subs (4) should [not] be confined to deliberations at the highest level of executive government...rather it] would be prejudiced if information was adduced in evidence that instead related [to government]…[on] construction of s 130(4)(f), the nature of the agency…may be
2. The DPP acknowledges if the public interest in admitting a document relating to “matters of state” is outweighed by the public interest in preserving secrecy/confidentiality, the court can prevent its disclosure. The DPP submits the facts do not support this.
GROUNDS OF ARGUMENT
GROUND 1 — Document A does not satisfy section 130(4)(f) to relate to “matters of state” for the public interest immunity (PII) to be enlivened
3. The DPP acknowledges PII claims are either a class or contents claim. The DPP submits neither is available. …show more content…
Per Lord Reid in Conway v Rimmer, these claims are available for “…documents concerned with policy-making within departments”, i.e. cabinet documents/discussions.
5. Document A was prepared by ST “to deal with staffing shortages”, thus wholly unrelated to government policy-making, so class claim is unavailable.
Ground 1.2 - No valid contents claim available- Document A’s disclosure would not prejudice the government to enliven PII
6. The DPP submits that despite recent Victorian authority, Ryan v State of Victoria, arguably broadening what was previously considered “…proper functioning of government”, Document A still “fails at the threshold“ so a contents claim is unavailable.
7. Previously, per Royal Women’s Hospital, documents/information would only satisfy section 130(4)(f) if they related to “decision-making ‘at the highest levels of government’”.
8. However, per Tate JA in Ryan, “…the proper functioning of government’ in the context of para (f) of subs (4) should [not] be confined to deliberations at the highest level of executive government...rather it] would be prejudiced if information was adduced in evidence that instead related [to government]…[on] construction of s 130(4)(f), the nature of the agency…may be