1 Feb 1994, 09:00

The complainant asked our Office to investigate the decision of the Commissioner of Police to refuse the complainant access to photographs used in evidence at his trial.

When we examined the photographs in question, we found that only two of them were of the complainant. The other photographs did not constitute personal information about the requester and we therefore did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint under the Privacy Act. The photographs did however constitute official information and we transferred the complaint in this regard to the Office of the Ombudsman for consideration.

In respect of the photographs which did to some extent identify the complainant, they also showed another person. We concluded that they did contain personal information about the requester and considered whether the Commissioner of Police was justified in refusing access to these photographs. In this regard we considered section 29(1)(a) of the Act which states that an agency may refuse to disclose any information requested if: "the disclosure would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual."

Outcome

We formed the view that the releasing of the photographs to the complainant would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of the other person who appeared in them. In reaching this conclusion we noted the extremely explicit nature of the photographs and the extent of the possible interference with the privacy of the other person involved which would result from the release and further dissemination of the photographs.

The complainant stated that he needed the photographs in order to prepare for an appeal against his conviction. We noted that if the photographs were material to the complainant's appeal we might have considered the option of providing the complainant with conditional access to them through a solicitor or legal adviser. However, in my opinion unconditional access to them was not warranted in the circumstances.