LEX 4569.pdf

OFFICIAL
ANNEXURE A

STATEMENT OF REASONS RELATING TO AN FOI REQUEST BY
Foifoi Mcgee

I, Casey Auld, Team Leader - Freedom of Information, am an officer authorised under section 23 of the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (Act) to make decisions in relation to the Australian Federal
Police (AFP). What follows is my decision and reasons for the decision in relation to your request.

A.  BACKGROUND

1.  On 1 September 2025the AFP received your request in the following terms:

“All documents relating to investigations of Australian Citizens who fought for the IDF since 7
October 2023”

2.  On 4 September 2025, the AFP sought your agreement to an extension of time pursuant to
section 15AA. On 9 September 2025, you informed the AFP that you agreed to the extension of
time. The statutory due date for processing your request was 31 October 2025.

3.  Pursuant to section 15AC of the FOI Act, your request was deemed refused as of 1 November
2025, on the basis that a decision was not made by that date. We apologise for the inconvenience
and delay in finalising your request. Since that date, the AFP has continued to process your
request.

B.  SEARCHES

4.  Searches for documents were undertaken by teams within the following operational areas:

•  International Command;
•  Counter Terrorism Command; and
•  Special Investigations Command

With the following searches and their parameters:

(a)  a “text” search of the AFP’s investigation case management system “Police Real-time Online
Management Information System” (PROMIS) for records relating to:

•  Israeli Defence Force
•  IDF
•  Israel
•  Israel Defence Force
•  Israeli Defence Force and Australian or Citizen or IDF
•  Queensland
•  Brisbane

with the date range “7/10/2023”;

(b)  a search of AFP Emails systems for records relating to:

•  IDF
•  Queensland
Freedom of Information
/ GPO Box 401 Canberra City ACT 2601
/ Email: xxx@xxx.xxx.xx
POLICING FOR A SAFER AUSTRALIA
ABN 17 864 931 143
afp.gov.au

OFFICIAL

8.  Overall, the AFP estimates it has spent the upper limit of 113 hours on processing the FOI
Request. This is equivalent to almost 15 business days approximately.

C.  WAIVER OF CHARGES

9.  Given the request has exceeded all statutory timeframes as outlined at section 15 of the Act, the
AFP is not able to impose any fees or charges as outlined at Regulation 5(2) & (3) of the Freedom
of Information (Charges) Regulations 1982.

D.  EVIDENCE/MATERIAL ON WHICH MY FINDINGS WERE BASED

10.  In reaching my decision, I have relied on the following:

(a)  the scope of your request;
(b)  the contents of the documents identified as relevant to the request;
(c)  advice from AFP officers with responsibility for matters contained in the documents;
(d)  the Act; and
(e)  the guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner under section
93A of the Act.

E.  DECISION

11.  Paragraph [3.160] of the FOI Guidelines states:

Where an access refusal decision is deemed to have been made before a substantive decision is
made, the agency or minister continues to have an obligation to provide a statement of reasons on
the FOI request. This obligation to provide a statement of reasons on the FOI request continues
until any IC review of the deemed decision is finalised.

12.  In light of the above, I have prepared a statement of reasons on your FOI request.

13.  I have identified fourteen (14) documents relevant to your request.

14.  Had I made a decision within the statutory processing time, I would have decided to exempt all
documents in full with deletions pursuant to sections 47E(c), 47E(d) and 47F(1) of the Act.

15.  A schedule of each of document and details of my decision in relation to each document is at
Annexure B.

16.  My statement of reasons is set out below.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Material to which section 47E(c) applies:

17.  Section 47E(c) of the Act provides that:

“A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably
be expected to, do any of the following:
…
(c)
have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of
personnel by the Commonwealth, by Norfolk Island or by an agency.”

18.  The FOI Guidelines at paragraph [6.103] state the following in respect of section 47E(c):

OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL

“For this conditional exemption to apply, the document must relate to either:
•  the management of personnel – including broader human resources policies and
activities, recruitment, promotion, compensation, discipline, harassment and work
health and safety
•  the assessment of personnel – including the broader performance management
policies and activities concerning competency, in-house training requirements,
appraisals and underperformance, counselling, feedback, assessment for bonus or
eligibility for progression.” (footnotes omitted).

19.  In relation to the phrase “would, or could reasonably be expected to”, paragraph 6.14 to 6.16 of
the FOI Guidelines provides thee following guidance:

6.14
The test requires the decision maker to assess the likelihood of the predicted or
forecast event, effect or damage occurring after disclosure of a document.

6.15
The use of the word ‘could’ is less stringent than ‘would’ and requires analysis of the
reasonable expectation rather than the certainty of an event, effect or damage
occurring. It may be a reasonable expectation that an effect has occurred, is presently
occurring, or could occur in the future.

6.16
The mere risk, allegation, possibility, or chance of prejudice does not qualify as a
reasonable expectation. There must be, based on reasonable grounds, at least a real,
significant or material possibility of prejudice.

20.  Paragraph 6.18 of the FOI Guidelines provides:

The term ‘substantial adverse effect’ broadly means ‘an adverse effect which is sufficiently
serious or significant to cause concern to a properly concerned reasonable person’. The
word ‘substantial’, in the context of substantial loss or damage, has been interpreted as
including ‘loss or damage that is, in the circumstances, real or of substance and not
insubstantial or nominal’.

Staff names

21.  Parts of the document have been identified as being exempt under section 47E(c). This material
contains the names of AFP appointees below SES level.

22.  The information I have identified as conditionally exempt could publicly identify staff not only as
working for the AFP, but their work location and activities. The public disclosure of this
information could expose those appointees to unwelcome behaviour from hostile actors. Law
enforcement employees have been a target of planned and actual attacks in Australia. AFP
appointees have also been the target of attempts to obtain information.

23.  Publicly identifying a person as an AFP appointee could also compromise the ability of some to work
in operational areas which require them to have no public profile.

24.  These risks are not far-fetched, and need to be considered in the context that information released
under FOI can be easily published online, and made widely available. On the basis that they present
risks to the health and safety, wellbeing, morale and career development of AFP appointees, I am
satisfied that release this information could have a substantial adverse effect on the management of
personnel within the AFP.

25.  However, I must give access to this information unless, in the circumstances, access at this time
would be contrary to the public interest.

OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL

26.  I have considered the following factors favouring disclosure:

(a)
the general public interest in access to documents as expressed in sections 3 and 11B of
the Act; and
(b)
the public interest in people being able to scrutinise the operations of a government
agency and in promoting governmental accountability and transparency.

27.  I have considered the following factor against disclosure:

(c)
prejudice to the safety, welfare and morale of AFP personnel; and
(d)
release may have a substantial adverse effect on the management of personnel in future.

28.  Ultimately, while there is a public interest in providing access to documents held by the AFP,
consequently, I have given greater weight to factors (c) and (d) above, and conclude that on
balance, disclosure is not in the public interest. I consider the need to ensure the safety of AFP
personnel, and the AFP’s ability to support and manage its personnel weighs against disclosure.

29.  Accordingly, I find those parts of the document identifying staff names are exempt under section
47E(c) of the Act.

Material to which section 47E(d) applies:

30.  Section 47E(d) of the Act provides that:

“A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably
be expected to, do any of the following:
…
(d)
have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the
operations of an agency;…”

31.  The same principles apply in relation to the phrases “would, or could reasonably be expected to”
and “substantial adverse effect” as those outlined in paragraph 19 and 20 above.

32.  The documents or parts of documents identified as exempt under this section of the Act contain
information, the release of which, would have a substantial adverse effect on the conduct of AFP
operations – specifically, the AFP’s expected functions as a law enforcement agency.

33.  The AFP performs statutory functions relating to services by way of the prevention and
investigation of offences. Certain information identified as exempt under this section of the Act
provides details relevant to the AFP’s processes in detecting, investigating, preventing, and
prosecuting criminal offending. I am of the view that disclosure of the information could
reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient
performance of those functions.

34.  Further, certain information redacted under this section of the Act reveals internal AFP email
addresses and contact details, specifically the local-part of internal AFP email addresses. These
contact details are not widely known and to disclose this information would impact on the AFP’s
day to day operations by resulting in the diversion of AFP resources to responding to unsolicited
correspondence received through those points of contact.

35.  However, I must give access to this information unless, in the circumstances, access at this time
would be contrary to the public interest.

36.  I have considered the following factors favouring disclosure:

OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL

(a)
the general public interest in access to documents as expressed in sections 3 and 11B of
the Act; and
(b)
the public interest in people being able to scrutinise the operations of a government
agency and in promoting governmental accountability and transparency.

37.  I have considered the following factors against disclosure:

(c)  the need for the agency to maintain the efficiency of current procedures, particularly as a
law enforcement agency;
(d)  that if information concerning internal contact details were revealed, it may have a
substantial adverse effect on the conduct of AFP operations in the future; and
(e)  if such information was disclosed, it would divert AFP resources from the proper conduct
of their expected operations.

38.  While there is a public interest in providing access to documents held by the AFP, I have given
greater weight to factors (c), (d) and (e) above and conclude on balance, disclosure is not in the
public interest, given the need to ensure the effectiveness of current AFP procedures.

Material to which section 47F applies:

39.  Section 47F of the Act provides that:

“(1)
A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would involve the
unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a
deceased person).”

40.  The documents or parts of documents identified as exempt under this section of the Act contain
personal information of individuals other than you.  Personal information is information or an
opinion about an individual whose identity is known or easily ascertainable. I find that these
documents or parts of the documents contain details including the name and contact details of
third parties.

41.  In considering whether release of this information is unreasonable, I have taken into account
factors at section 47F(2), including:

(a)
the extent to which the information is well known;
(b)
whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be (or to have been)
associated with the matters dealt with in the documents;
(c)
the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources;
(d)
the current relevance of the information; and
(e)
the circumstances in which the information was obtained and any expectation of
confidentiality.

42.  Paragraph 6.133 of the FOI Guidelines states that:

The personal privacy exemption is designed to prevent the unreasonable invasion of third
parties’ privacy. The test of ‘unreasonableness’ implies a need to balance the public interest in
disclosure of government-held information and the private interest in the privacy of individuals.
The test does not, however, amount to the public interest test of s 11A(5), which follows later in
the decision making process. It is possible that the decision maker may need to consider one
or more factors twice, once to determine if a projected effect is unreasonable and again when
assessing the public interest balance.

43.  I note that the AAT, in Re Chandra and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1984] AATA
437 at paragraph 51-52, stated that:

OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL

... whether a disclosure is ‘unreasonable’ requires … a consideration of all the circumstances,
including the nature of the information that would be disclosed, the circumstances in which the
information was obtained, the likelihood of the information being information that the person
concerned would not wish to have disclosed without consent, and whether the information has
any current relevance … it is also necessary in my view to take into consideration the public
interest recognised by the Act in the disclosure of information … and to weigh that interest in
the balance against the public interest in protecting the personal privacy of a third party ...

44.  I find release of this personal information to be unreasonable. The information is not well known
nor available from publicly available sources. The information was obtained by the AFP for the
purpose, and in the context of, responding to an investigation with the expectation that the
information remains confidential. Furthermore, consent by individuals has not been granted on
the release of their personal information.

45.  However, I must give access to the folios unless, in the circumstances, access at this time would
on balance be contrary to the public interest.

46.  I have considered the general public interest in access to documents as expressed in sections 3
and 11B of the Act as the factor favouring disclosure.

47.  I have considered the following factors against disclosure:

(a)
prejudice to the protection of an individual’s right to privacy (including in consideration of
whether their consent was provided);
(b)
the risk that if people are aware their personal information could be disclosed, that this
would impede the flow of information to the police;
(c)
the need for the agency to maintain the confidentiality with regard to the subject matter
and the circumstances in which the information was obtained;
(d)
if such information was disclosed, it may discourage public cooperation in AFP
investigations; and
(e)
the fact that the information is not on the public record or available from publicly
accessible sources.

48.  While there is a public interest in providing access to documents held by the AFP, I have given
greater weight to the factors against disclosure above and conclude that on balance, disclosure is
not in the public interest.

49.  Accordingly, I find the documents or parts of documents are exempt under section 47F of the Act.

OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL
ANNEXURE B

SCHEDULE OF DECISION – LEX 4569
RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS – FOIFOI MCGEE

Document
Folio
Author
Description
Decision
Exemption
Number
Australian
1.
1-3
Federal Police
Situation Report
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)
(AFP)
2.
4-7
Third party
Report
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)
Section 47E(c)
3.
8-10
AFP
Report
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)
Section 47E(c)
4.
11-12
AFP
Report
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)
Section 47E(c)
5.
13-14
AFP
Report
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)
Section 47E(c)
6.
15-16
AFP
Report
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)
7.
17-33
AFP
Information Report
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)
Section 47E(c)
8.
34-36
AFP
Situation Report
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)

OFFICIAL

9.
37-38
AFP
Decision
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)
Section 47E(c)
10.
39-41
AFP
Situation Report
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)
11.
42-43
AFP
Decision
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)
Section 47E(c)
12.
44-50
AFP
Investigation Summary
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)
13.
51-53
AFP
Report
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)
Section 47F(1)
14.
54-79
Third party
Screen shots
Refuse Access
Section 47E(d)

OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL
ANNEXURE C

***YOU SHOULD READ THIS GENERAL ADVICE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
REQUIREMENTS IN THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 (Cth)***

REVIEW AND COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with a Freedom of Information decision made by the AFP, you can apply for a
review of the decision by the Information Commissioner (IC). As this decision has been made outside the
statutory time period, the option of internal review by the AFP is not available as per Section 54E of the
FOI Act.

For complaints about the AFP’s actions in processing your request, you do not need to seek review by
either the AFP or the IC in making your complaint.

REVIEW RIGHTS under Part VII of the Act

Review by the Information Commissioner

Section 54L of the FOI Act gives you the right to apply directly to the IC for review of this decision. In
making your application you will need to provide an address for notices to be sent (this can be an email
address) and a copy of the AFP decision.

Section 54S of the FOI Act provides the timeframes for an IC review submission. For an access refusal
decision covered by section 54L(2), the application must be made within 60 days. For an access grant
decision covered by section 54M(2), the application must be made within 30 days.

Applications for IC review may be lodged by email (xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx), using the OAIC’s online
application form (available at www.oaic.gov.au) or addressed to:

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

GPO Box 5128

Sydney NSW 2001

The IC encourages parties to an IC review to resolve their dispute informally, and to consider possible
compromises or alternative solutions to the dispute in this matter. The AFP would be pleased to assist
you in this regard.

Complaint

If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your FOI request, please let us know what we could
have done better. We may be able to rectify the problem. If you are not satisfied with our response, you
can make a complaint to the IC. A complaint may be lodged using the same methods identified above. It
would assist if you set out the action you consider should be investigated and your reasons or grounds.

More information about IC reviews and complaints is available on the OAIC’s website at
https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/reviews-and-complaints/.

Freedom of Information
/ GPO Box 401 Canberra City ACT 2601
/ Email: xxx@xxx.xxx.xx
POLICING FOR A SAFER AUSTRALIA
ABN 17 864 931 143
afp.gov.au