Report of Inquiry into Spring Hill Prison riot - no good reason to withhold; strong public interest in release

In June 2016, a requester sought a copy of the Department of Corrections’ report into the Spring Hill prisoner riot of 2013. He complained to the Chief Ombudsman when the Department released summary information and withheld the full report under sections 6(c) and 9(2)(ba)(i) of the OIA.

Because the Department’s concerns related to the need to preserve the flow of ‘free and frank’ information during internal audits and operational reviews, the application of section 9(2)(g)(i) was considered. The Chief Ombudsman was not persuaded that section 9(2)(g)(i) applied, but considered that even if it did, there was a strong public interest in release of information that set out the Department’s analysis of how the riot occurred, the quality of the response, and the lessons learned from the operational review. That public interest had not been addressed by the release of summary information. As such, the Chief Ombudsman was not persuaded that good reason existed under the OIA to refuse all of the report.

However, the Chief Ombudsman did consider that certain limited information would, if released, prejudice the maintenance of the law as it would prejudice undermine operational security.

The Department published the full report on its website, subject to some redactions under section 6(c) of the OIA in order to maintain operational security.

This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989 opens page in this tab. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.