Request for videotape of Police interview—videotape withheld under s 9(2)(a)—strong public interest in the requester knowing how the Police had conducted its inquiries and responses given—release of transcript, subject to deletions, would meet public interest
In this case the requester had made a complaint to the Police that her brother had sexually abused her over a period of time. After investigating the complaint the Police advised that no charges would be laid against the brother. The requester then made a request under the OIA for a copy of the videotaped interview of her brother so that she could consider whether to take private prosecution action. This request was declined under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA.
After viewing the videotape in the presence of a representative of the Privacy Commissioner’s office, it was clear that the information it disclosed was an inextricable mixture of personal information about the requester, which fell for consideration under the Privacy Act, and personal information about her brother, which fell for consideration under the OIA. By its very nature, the video contained very personal information about the brother, even though it was about the requester’s allegations about him, and it was concluded that its release would infringe the brother’s privacy interest in terms of section 9(2)(a).
It was also recognised that there was a strong public interest in terms of section 9(1) of the OIA in the requester obtaining enough information in order to decide whether to take up a private prosecution. Furthermore, as she had made a complaint to the Police, there was also a public interest in her having sufficient information to make an assessment of the Police conduct of its investigation into her allegations.
These public interest considerations favouring disclosure of information to the requester had to be balanced against the brother’s established privacy interest. It was not feasible to edit the video in such a way as to meet these competing interests. It was therefore concluded, after consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, that release of a transcript of the interview, with deletions of information relating to other people, would meet the public interest in the requester knowing how the Police had conducted its inquiries into her complaint and what responses her brother had given, while at the same time protecting the very personal portrayal on video of her brother’s reactions to the allegations. The Police released the information on the foregoing basis.
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.