NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner Agrees Open Access Information Mandated for Release Held by
NSW Police Should be Withheld from Public, 30.11.2021
Today the Information Commissioner (IPC) issued a report on its External Review of determination of Access to Information request for information perceived as open access and mandated for release free of charge.
In brief, the IPC agreed policy documentation concerning the methodology and investigation of Fixated Persons by NSW Police should be withheld.
The IPC was asked to review NSW Police’ Notice of Decision issued on 22nd September 2021 to NSW Freedom of Information Advocate Telina Webb who had asked for “a full and unedited copy of the Policy and Procedure, inclusive of criteria or category parameters, for the Fixated Persons Unit investigation, inclusion on list, method of investigation, where file information is disseminated to, and any other description or information that is encompassed within the Fixated Persons Unit police process.”
Ms Webb’s interest had been raised on seeing the media report concerning the Friendly Jordies and Deputy Premier John Barillaro, which saw the former arrested by police from the Fixated Persons Investigations Unit (FPIU). It all seemed excessive and a total overreaction to what was promoted and intended as satire on the part of The Jordies. FPIU is noted to be concerned with counter-terrorism. The article from Australian & New Zealand School of Government suggested police had deviated from standard investigation practice. Such an action by police highlighted the apparent policing of free speech, political influence on public agencies, and the oversight of such.
To this date there has not been any disclosure to the public they risk being labelled as Fixated Persons for actions of parody.
So Webb asked for the policy and procedure supporting these kinds of serious responses from law enforcement.From the start this valid access application to NSW Police was problematic. First, Police ignored the fact the requested information was open access mandated for release.
Police however imposed the Formal Access Application process applying the nominated of $30.00.
Next, the officer processing the request, who identified only as “M”, imposed an Advance Deposit of an additional $30.00, disclosed to be chargeable via the stored credit card details of Webb; to that point Police had not disclosed it retained the public’s credit card information.
By the time of the Notice of Decision, 22nd September 2025, Police claimed to have spent 3.5 hours processing the Application, and insisted a further $30.00 was owing. When Webb questioned the additional charges “M” wrote to Webb stating if not paid it would be recorded as a debt against her…………..
The advance deposit and additional charge was indicative “M” had to search for the requested information. Extraordinary for information expected to be at hand as is other policy and procedure documentation; remember, Webb had not asked for any personal information, only policy documents, just the forms and the process associated with claimed Fixated Persons. Surely the public has the right to know who’s doing the reporting? How are fixated persons identified? How are they processed? What qualifies as evidence? How do they get declassified from fixated? What are the review processes? How does such a label impact the public’s ability to access NSW Police services? Is such labelling circulated to other agencies? Is it something viewable through a licence check on the COPS System on the side of the road?????? And when do they inform the victim of the labelling?
Already this simple request looked extremely messy and unnecessarily overcomplicated, but this was NSW Police, what are you going to do? Even before receiving the Notice of Decision, Webb had formed the view NSW Police were manipulating the GIPA process. Because the Access Application had been processed Formally the result of the imposition of fees, the Notice of Decision was open to the full suite of the GIPA Act 2009, in particular Schedule 1, 7 “that it is to be conclusively presumed that there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of information contained in … (b) a document created by the State Intelligence Command or the Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics Command of the NSW Police Force, the former Counter Terrorist Co-ordination Command of the NSW Police Force, the former Protective Security Group of the Police Service, the former Special Branch of the Police Service or the former Bureau of Criminal Intelligence.”
Police’ Notice of Decision listed one single document relevant to Webb’s request. “Standard operating procedures: Fixated persons investigations involving public office holders.” There was no mention of terrorism.
Schedule 1 Clause 7 actually states, as its opener, “Documents affecting law enforcement and public safety.”
Hey hold on! Webb didn’t ask for any information contained in any document. She only asked for policy and procedure, and she most certainly did not ask for any document affecting law enforcement and public safety. Which begs the question how is the release of a policy document setting a process of law or lawful process able to affect law enforcement and public safety? Moving on Webb sought external review with the IPC who ended up agreeing with Police. No surprises there.
IPC reported NSW Police did not provide a copy of the identified document to the IPC for consideration. Instead Police supplied the IPC with a copy of the GIPA Instruction Sheet (no information about what that is) completed by the Detective Senior Sergeant – Group Coordinator, Anti-Terrorism & Intelligence Group, Counter Terrorism & Special Tactics Command (good grief!), which satisfied the IPC everything was above board. It is easy to envisage an individual with a title like that would carry a lot of bird poop on their shoulders.
The take aways from this humble valid Access Application are that an agency can process an Informal Request for open access information mandated for release free of charge as a Formal Request, thereby automatically invoking the public interest clauses against disclosure preventing release if desired, and imposing charges ordinarily inapplicable. It also shows the IPC doesn’t always have all the information at hand when making decisions with legal implications; it can just be a situation where an agency's determined position is accepted on face value. The public has no access to any of the behind-the-scenes reviews with the IPC, such records are also protected under Exempt Information preventing the public’s ability to rightfully question whether or not due process has in fact been afforded. Yes, an Access Applicant can take a further review to the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, but seriously, in this case the risk was Webb herself being classified as a Fixated Person if she chose to press her Access Application.
The Request for Information is here. The Police’ Notice of Decision is here. The IPC’s Review Report is here.
Contact: IPC: ipcinfo@ipc.nsw.gov.au
NSW Police: gipa@police.nsw.gov.au
In brief, the IPC agreed policy documentation concerning the methodology and investigation of Fixated Persons by NSW Police should be withheld.
The IPC was asked to review NSW Police’ Notice of Decision issued on 22nd September 2021 to NSW Freedom of Information Advocate Telina Webb who had asked for “a full and unedited copy of the Policy and Procedure, inclusive of criteria or category parameters, for the Fixated Persons Unit investigation, inclusion on list, method of investigation, where file information is disseminated to, and any other description or information that is encompassed within the Fixated Persons Unit police process.”
Ms Webb’s interest had been raised on seeing the media report concerning the Friendly Jordies and Deputy Premier John Barillaro, which saw the former arrested by police from the Fixated Persons Investigations Unit (FPIU). It all seemed excessive and a total overreaction to what was promoted and intended as satire on the part of The Jordies. FPIU is noted to be concerned with counter-terrorism. The article from Australian & New Zealand School of Government suggested police had deviated from standard investigation practice. Such an action by police highlighted the apparent policing of free speech, political influence on public agencies, and the oversight of such.
To this date there has not been any disclosure to the public they risk being labelled as Fixated Persons for actions of parody.
So Webb asked for the policy and procedure supporting these kinds of serious responses from law enforcement.From the start this valid access application to NSW Police was problematic. First, Police ignored the fact the requested information was open access mandated for release.
Police however imposed the Formal Access Application process applying the nominated of $30.00.
Next, the officer processing the request, who identified only as “M”, imposed an Advance Deposit of an additional $30.00, disclosed to be chargeable via the stored credit card details of Webb; to that point Police had not disclosed it retained the public’s credit card information.
By the time of the Notice of Decision, 22nd September 2025, Police claimed to have spent 3.5 hours processing the Application, and insisted a further $30.00 was owing. When Webb questioned the additional charges “M” wrote to Webb stating if not paid it would be recorded as a debt against her…………..
The advance deposit and additional charge was indicative “M” had to search for the requested information. Extraordinary for information expected to be at hand as is other policy and procedure documentation; remember, Webb had not asked for any personal information, only policy documents, just the forms and the process associated with claimed Fixated Persons. Surely the public has the right to know who’s doing the reporting? How are fixated persons identified? How are they processed? What qualifies as evidence? How do they get declassified from fixated? What are the review processes? How does such a label impact the public’s ability to access NSW Police services? Is such labelling circulated to other agencies? Is it something viewable through a licence check on the COPS System on the side of the road?????? And when do they inform the victim of the labelling?
Already this simple request looked extremely messy and unnecessarily overcomplicated, but this was NSW Police, what are you going to do? Even before receiving the Notice of Decision, Webb had formed the view NSW Police were manipulating the GIPA process. Because the Access Application had been processed Formally the result of the imposition of fees, the Notice of Decision was open to the full suite of the GIPA Act 2009, in particular Schedule 1, 7 “that it is to be conclusively presumed that there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of information contained in … (b) a document created by the State Intelligence Command or the Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics Command of the NSW Police Force, the former Counter Terrorist Co-ordination Command of the NSW Police Force, the former Protective Security Group of the Police Service, the former Special Branch of the Police Service or the former Bureau of Criminal Intelligence.”
Police’ Notice of Decision listed one single document relevant to Webb’s request. “Standard operating procedures: Fixated persons investigations involving public office holders.” There was no mention of terrorism.
Schedule 1 Clause 7 actually states, as its opener, “Documents affecting law enforcement and public safety.”
Hey hold on! Webb didn’t ask for any information contained in any document. She only asked for policy and procedure, and she most certainly did not ask for any document affecting law enforcement and public safety. Which begs the question how is the release of a policy document setting a process of law or lawful process able to affect law enforcement and public safety? Moving on Webb sought external review with the IPC who ended up agreeing with Police. No surprises there.
IPC reported NSW Police did not provide a copy of the identified document to the IPC for consideration. Instead Police supplied the IPC with a copy of the GIPA Instruction Sheet (no information about what that is) completed by the Detective Senior Sergeant – Group Coordinator, Anti-Terrorism & Intelligence Group, Counter Terrorism & Special Tactics Command (good grief!), which satisfied the IPC everything was above board. It is easy to envisage an individual with a title like that would carry a lot of bird poop on their shoulders.
The take aways from this humble valid Access Application are that an agency can process an Informal Request for open access information mandated for release free of charge as a Formal Request, thereby automatically invoking the public interest clauses against disclosure preventing release if desired, and imposing charges ordinarily inapplicable. It also shows the IPC doesn’t always have all the information at hand when making decisions with legal implications; it can just be a situation where an agency's determined position is accepted on face value. The public has no access to any of the behind-the-scenes reviews with the IPC, such records are also protected under Exempt Information preventing the public’s ability to rightfully question whether or not due process has in fact been afforded. Yes, an Access Applicant can take a further review to the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, but seriously, in this case the risk was Webb herself being classified as a Fixated Person if she chose to press her Access Application.
The Request for Information is here. The Police’ Notice of Decision is here. The IPC’s Review Report is here.
Contact: IPC: ipcinfo@ipc.nsw.gov.au
NSW Police: gipa@police.nsw.gov.au
Contact us using this form to start your conversation about your GIPA with NSW Police.