Dear Australian Federal Police,

I request a copy of any communication from ACT Policing to the (ACT) DPP where:
1. The communication is sent on or after 1 August 2023, and
2. The communication is to the DPP (that is, this scope does not include communications from the DPP to ACT Policing), and
3. The communication relates to an investigation into, or including, alleged sexual offences, and
4. ACT Policing's view in their communication is, or could be understood to be, or could be inferred to be when reading between the lines to be, that the investigation or part of it should not proceed to charges, or
5. ACT Policing's view in their communication is, or could be understood to be, or could be inferred to be when reading between the lines to be, less supportive of the investigation or part of it proceeding to charges when compared to the DPP's view (including a view actually expressed by the DPP and a view the DPP is anticipated to have)

Exclusions:
A. Non-SES personal information (SES includes acting SES)
B. Direct phone numbers
C. Non-public email addresses excluding the domain
D. Personal information of people that are not AFP or DPP employees (for example, complainants, witnesses, and defendants)

I note that redactions on the basis of legal professional privilege will be closely scrutinised. Communications from the DPP are presumptively legal advice and are excluded for that reason. However, a police officer providing their opinion in relation to an investigation is not legal advice and nor is it inherently a request for legal advice.

Yours faithfully,

Reasonable Prospects