Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-03T13:08:36.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Commentaries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Extract

It has been a very polite seminar so far and the reasonableness of the public servants who have spoken has been noteworthy. May I just inject a slight note of scepticism, based probably upon the number of years one has sought access to information on behalf of clients, and been refused; and sought to challenge decisions when there have been no reasons given. Perhaps more importantly I have been involved in cases where either the other side or my own side has made claims for Crown privilege. I think those of us who have been involved in cases where Crown privilege was claimed in pre Sankey v Whitlam days will appreciate that those claims were very often very poorly based. I am not speaking simply of Commonwealth authorities, my greater experience is with the various State authorities. I think it is also fair to say that Sankey v Whitlam has not received universal approval at all levels of the public service both Commonwealth and State. We now sometimes have the opportunity of actually seeing the documents that have been withheld because of the high public interest involved. This cannot help but make us rather sceptical because they are often very routine in their nature.

Type
Article Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1978) 142 CLR 1.

2 R v Connell: Ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 407.