Territory Stories

Freedom of Information, Privacy Protection & Public Interest Disclosures in the Northern Territory : annual report 2011-2012

Details:

Title

Freedom of Information, Privacy Protection & Public Interest Disclosures in the Northern Territory : annual report 2011-2012

Other title

Commissioner for Information and Public Interest Disclosures annual report 2011 - 12

Creator

Northern Territory. Commissioner for Information and Public Interest Disclosures

Collection

E-Publications; E-Books; PublicationNT; Commissioner for Information and Public Interest Disclosures annual report; Annual Report

Date

2012-09-30

Notes

Made available via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).

Language

English

Subject

Whistle blowing; Law and Legislation; Annual report; Periodicals

Publisher name

Northern Territory Government

Place of publication

Darwin

Series

Commissioner for Information and Public Interest Disclosures annual report; Annual Report

Volume

2011/12

Previously known as

Office of the Information Commissioner

File type

application/pdf

Use

Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Northern Territory Government

License

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/243418

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/603229

Page content

Page 35 Prima facie decision 1 Correcting a Police Alert The complainant learned that an alert was held against his profile in the police database that suggested he was likely to make false complaints about persons of a particular residential complex. His view was that this information was inaccurate and he sought to have it corrected. NT Police took the view that the information was accurate and refused to correct it. The complainant complained to the Information Commissioner. The alert had been added by two police members who had investigated when the complainant had contacted police to deal with an incident. The police members were contacted about the reasons why they added the alert, and stated that they had spoken to the alleged offenders in the incident, who convinced police that the complainant was the one actually causing the trouble. The alleged offenders also said the complainant was a nuisance and constantly harassed them. One of the police members expressed the view that the alleged offenders were upstanding and good citizens. The decision maker found that this information lacked the factual detail needed to support the assertion that the complainant is likely to make false complaints. It was unremarkable for an alleged offender to dispute the account of an alleged victim, and police members did not identify any other reason for coming to the conclusion that the complainant had caused the trouble. No particular details in the complainants account were identified as being false. The fact that a person may be perceived by some persons to be a nuisance and harass people does not mean that the person is likely to make false complaints. Police submitted evidence of a subsequent incident called in by the complainant and investigated by two different members. This was submitted as evidence that the alert was accurate, but primarily served to highlight the potentially problematic effect of placing such an alert on the police database. The members who investigated the second incident saw the alert and immediately formed the conclusion that the complainant was making another false complaint before doing anything more about the incident than speaking to the complainant. No facts to support this assessment of falsity were indicated other than a reference to the alert itself. The alleged offender was spoken to and denied the allegations and the investigation was then terminated. Additional issues of procedural fairness arose in this case which also supported the need for the Information Commissioner to hear the matter. The decision maker decided that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to support the complainants contention that the alert was inaccurate and ought to be removed, although the accuracy of the alert was a question of fact that would need to be decided at hearing. An alert is not a kind of information that is for historical purposes only. Following the prima facie decision, NT Police voluntarily removed the alert and the matter was resolved.


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.

We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
By continuing to use this site without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies.