4 Operation Foster reviews PROMIS list
Dear Australian Federal Police,
I request a list of all PROMIS numbers for cases considered by Operation Foster, broken down by their most recent Operation Foster-related status (for example, for immediate re-investigation, or for possible further action, etc. (however described))
In the alternative, I request minimum number of documents necessary for me to accurately make such a list.
Exclusions: non-SES personal information (SES includes acting SES), direct phone numbers, and non-public email addresses excluding the domain.
Yours faithfully,
Reasonable Prospects
OFFICIAL
Dear Reasonable Prospects,
Please note, we have recently updated our Freedom of Information webform
which is our preferred method for FOI request submissions. It would be
greatly appreciated when submitting requests in the future if you could
please lodge them through the FOI [1]webform.
I refer to your request 12 requests dated 5 December 2025, seeking access
to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act).
Under section 24(2)(b) of the FOI Act, an Agency may treat 2 or more
requests as a single request if the Agency is satisfied that the requests
relate to documents, the subject matter of which is substantially the
same. This is supported in 3.219 of the OAIC Guidelines which states that
“Multiple requests can only be combined as a single request under s 24(2)
if there is a clear connection between the subject matter of the requested
document”
The AFP has decided that your 12 requests cover 2 subject matters being
the Sofronoff Inquiry and Operation Foster. As there is a clear connection
between the subject matter of these requests, the 12 requests have been
combined into 2.
The following requests relate to the Sofronoff Inquiry and have been
combined under LEX 5029.
Request
I request any document in the period 1-31 August 2023 inclusive sent to or
received from the ACT government, or part thereof (including ministers'
offices), relating to the Sofronoff Inquiry.
SES includes acting SES.
I request any document in the period 1-31 August 2023 inclusive sent to or
received from the Commonwealth government, or part thereof (including
ministers' offices), relating to the Sofronoff Inquiry.
I request a copy of any policy that defines ‘the threshold to charge and
the considerations which should inform a police officer's application of
the threshold to a given case’ (Sofronoff Inquiry Recommendation 1),
including draft polices, that existed from 1 August - 30 November 2023
inclusive.
I request any document in the period 1-31 August 2023 inclusive sent to or
from an AFP SES employee in the ACT Policing part of the AFP relating to
the Sofronoff Inquiry.
SES includes acting SES and 'in the ACT Policing part' includes in ACT
Policing for any portion of August 2023.
I request documents within the following scope:
1. Created 1-30 August 2023 inclusive, or
2. Created 1-31 July 2024 inclusive, or
3. Created 1-30 June 2025 inclusive, and
4. Include the word "Sofronoff", or
5. Include a misspelling of "Sofronoff", such as "Sofrnoff" or "Sofronof"
or similar, and
6. Are internal to AFP (as against, for example, an email received from or
sent to another government entity), and
7. Are not text messages.
For example, emails and Microsoft Teams chats within the above scope.
I request a copy of any document created on or after 1 August 2023 that
is, or could be understood to be, a communication to ACT Policing or a
subset of ACT Policing regarding the Sofronoff inquiry
For example, an email to all AFP employees (ACT Policing and Federal) is
included because ACT Policing is a subset of all AFP and therefore a
communication to all AFP is necessarily a communication to ACT Policing
For example, an email to all SACAT officers (or similar / however
described) is included because SACAT is a subset of ACT Policing
For example, an email to the investigator/s in a specific investigation is
not included because individual investigator/s are not a subset of ACT
Policing in the relevant way, and/or, their sergeant giving them advice
about a specific investigation is a communication regarding that
investigation, not regarding the Sofronoff inquiry.
I request any training documents that were created in furtherance of
Sofronoff Inquiry Recommendation 1, or otherwise relate to that
recommendation
I request a copy of any current policy that defines ‘the threshold to
charge and the considerations which should inform a police officer's
application of the threshold to a given case’ (Sofronoff Inquiry
Recommendation 1).
The following requests relate to the Operation Foster and have been
combined under LEX 5031
Request
I request a list of all PROMIS numbers for cases considered by Operation
Foster, broken down by their most recent Operation Foster-related status
(for example, for immediate re-investigation, or for possible further
action, etc. (however described))
In the alternative, I request minimum number of documents necessary for me
to accurately make such a list.
I request a copy of any documents that applied or were created on or after
1 August 2023 concerning the status of evidence in chief interviews
(EICIs) in sexual offence investigations
'Status' is to be broadly understood and includes the evidentiary weight
of an EICI, whether it can or should meet the threshold to charge and if
so in what circumstances, etc.
'EICIs' is to be understood as a reference to any statement by a
complainant that is recorded by police and that may be able to be used as
evidence in Court. EICI includes, for example, a family violence evidence
in chief interview (FVEIC) and a record of conversation (ROC).
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)
1 July 2024 and 30 June 2025
1. Within the period 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 inclusive, and
2. Relating to a sexual offence investigation where
(a) A substantive investigation was conducted (as against, say, a report
of sexual offences from CYF that was not accepted for investigation), and
(b) The investigation was finalised without charges or a summons or
similar, and
3. The document is a substantive summary of the investigation (such as a
case note entry), or
4. The document substantively sets out the reason(s) that the
investigation was finalised without charges or similar (such as a case
status finalised case note entry, or an email from an investigator to
their supervisor explaining their decision to finalise without charges or
similar)
Scoping assistance
As your 2 requests stand, they may potentially be too broad for the AFP to
process.
I would appreciate if you could please review the combined requests and
remove the broader requests from the scope, as well as those requests
which capture a significant amount of other people’s personal information.
It would then be open to you to lodge subsequent more targeted requests
once you have received the revised documents.
The broader requests are those that capture “any document”, “all
communication,” or potentially require the creation of a document such as
your last request, rather than a request for an actual document or policy
held by the AFP.
In addition, your requests relating to Operation Foster will likely
capture the personal information of third parties which you do not have
authority to access. This includes their case status, and a substantive
summary of their investigations. Without an authority, it is likely that
any material captured as part of this request may be exempt, in full or in
part, under the personal privacy exemption. You may want to consider
removing these portions from the scope of your request.
If you do not meaningfully revise your request, I intend to consult with
you formally under section 24AB.
Timeframe – Seeking your agreement to an extension of time
Upon consideration of your request, the AFP is of the view that your
request will take longer than 30 days to process. The delay is
regrettable, however, due to an excessive number of requests that have
come through our office it will not be possible to advise you of a
decision by 5 January 2025.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 15AA of the Act, I seek your agreement to
extend the period by 30 days to notify you of a decision by 3 February
2025.
I would be grateful if you would advise this office in writing of your
agreement to the proposed extension of time by close of business 18
December 2025.
Consents – Please provide your response: YES/NO
Please advise this office whether you consent to exclude the following
information:
• All identifying information of AFP members and Commonwealth employees
below SES level (names, ID numbers, signatures, images) (AFP members
and Commonwealth employees);
• AFP and Commonwealth agency contact details other than the official
public channels (direct telephone numbers and email addresses);
• Job titles of AFP members and Commonwealth employees below SES;
• Draft documents;
• Personal information of any individual other than you from the
documents you are seeking;
• Information provided by third parties to the AFP from the documents
you are seeking;
• All information about any third parties from the documents you are
seeking;
• Duplicate documents; and
• Documents you have already provided to us, or that we have already
sent to you.
Please advise this office of the following: YES/NO
• Do the documents you seek relate to current court proceedings? and
• Are the documents you are seeking older than 20 years old?:
Disclosure of your identity: YES/NO
The AFP may be required to consult with third parties in accordance with
sections 26A, 27 and 27A of the Act. Please advise us if you consent to
being identified as a third party where consultation with a third party is
necessary? If we do not receive your consent, we will not disclose your
identity to third parties.
Third Party Information:
Upon a review of your request, I can see that you are seeking to
obtain information that also relates to a third party. Please be advised
that under FOI you are unable to acquire information that relates to third
parties/other individuals without the consent of those concerned . In
accordance with the provisions of the Act where third party information is
concerned the AFP would be required to consult with those individuals
(where appropriate) to seek to obtain their consent on the release of
their personal information. Where consultation cannot occur or it is not
appropriate to do so, the information will be subject to exemption in
accordance with section 47F of the Act (personal privacy exemption) and
therefore redacted prior to release.
Information Publication Scheme
Please be advised that effective 1 May 2011 and in accordance with section
8(2) of the Act, an agency is required to publish information on the AFP
website following the notification of a decision in respect of a freedom
of information request. Details of the decision will be published in a
Disclosure Log which can be found at
[2]https://www.afp.gov.au/about-us/informat....
The requirement to publish information released under FOI reinforces the
objectives of the FOI Act to promote a pro-disclosure culture across
government, and to increase recognition that information held by
government is a national resource. Exceptions to the requirement to
publish information would apply to personal information and information
concerning the business affairs of a person if it was considered
‘unreasonable’ to do so.
If however, after noting the above, you wish to raise any concerns about
the publication of information concerning your request prior to the
notification of a decision, please advise the AFP in writing before 5
January 2025.
If you have any queries in relation to this matter, please do not hesitate
to contact our team at [3][AFP request email].
Yours sincerely,
LIBBY
Writing to you from Ngunnawal Country
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
[4]Australian Federal Police
References
Visible links
1. https://www.afp.gov.au/about-us/governan...
2. https://www.afp.gov.au/about-us/informat...
3. mailto:[AFP request email]
4. http://www.afp.gov.au/
Dear FOI (Libby),
Thanks for getting back to me
This reply concerns LEX 5031 (Operation Foster). I will reply separately regarding the intention to combine the 'Sofronoff' requests.
Is the AFP proposing to provide the list of PROMIS numbers with case status? If yes, the concerns about third party personal information do not apply. A PROMIS number and a case status for that PROMIS number do not include any personal information and/or do not identify any individual. In particular, a case status is not personal information unless the case status is attached to an identifiable individual.
Regarding personal information more generally, it is my preference to get the PROMIS list with case status for the express purpose of avoiding disclosure of personal information and/or because it is much less work for the AFP to produce a list than redact individual documents.
However, if the AFP prefers not to produce a list, I agree to exclude information that would identify a third party individual. A case status does not do this. Nor does an appropriately redacted substantive summary of their investigation.
Consents:
- Extension of time: no
- All identifying information of AFP members and Commonwealth employees
below SES level (names, ID numbers, signatures, images) (AFP members
and Commonwealth employees): yes
- AFP and Commonwealth agency contact details other than the official
public channels (direct telephone numbers and email addresses): yes subject to email domains not being excluded
- Job titles of AFP members and Commonwealth employees below SES: no
- Draft documents: yes
- Personal information of any individual other than you from the
documents you are seeking: yes, although with a narrower understanding of 'personal information' than the AFP may be inclined to apply
- Information provided by third parties to the AFP from the documents
you are seeking: no, unless it is exempt for another reason
- All information about any third parties from the documents you are
seeking: for individuals that are not AFP or Commonwealth employees, yes; for legal persons (corporations etc.) no
- Duplicate documents: yes
- Documents you have already provided to us, or that we have already
sent to you: does not apply
- Do the documents you seek relate to current court proceedings?: not to my knowledge
- Are the documents you are seeking older than 20 years old?: no
- Please advise us if you consent to
being identified as a third party where consultation with a third party is
necessary?: no
I note that AFP seems to use 'third party' and 'individual' interchangeably. They are not the same thing. My consents apply to individuals, not third parties who are not individuals.
Yours sincerely,
Reasonable Prospects
Dear FOI (Libby),
With apologies, I misread your first email. LEX 5031 appears to be a combination of requests 4, 9, 10, and 11.
My previous email relates only to 4.
Nine, 10, and 11 are distinct requests. Please reply to them individually.
Yours sincerely,
Reasonable Prospects
Dear FOI (Libby),
As with the other one, I would prefer the requests are progressed in a meaningful way and I accept that will take some amount of time.
If there is agreement to both (1) deal with the requests individually (or to combination of some requests that can sensibly be combined) and (2) to a scope that is mutually satisfactory, I will be happy to grant the maximum time extension.
Yours sincerely,
Reasonable Prospects
OFFICIAL
Dear Reasonable Prospects,
Please see attached correspondence regarding your Freedom of Information
request, LEX 5031.
Please note a response is requested by 2 January 2026.
Kind regards,
LIBBY
Writing to you from Ngunnawal Country
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
[1]Australian Federal Police
References
Visible links
1. http://www.afp.gov.au/
Dear FOI (Libby),
Thanks for the corro re LEX 5031 (Operation Foster-ish requests).
As above I don't agree with the requests being combined and if a practical refusal is made on the basis of the combined requests I would intend to dispute the practical refusal.
The letter says "I believe that the work involved in processing your request in its current form...". If I understand correctly, the "current form" is where the 4 requests are combined into one. Leaving aside whether the 4 requests can or should be combined, it would assist me if reasons were provided against each request specifically (or if they are combined, let's say 'sub-request').
For example, your letter does not appear to suggest that the PROMIS list, by itself, would be met with a practical refusal.
In terms of communication, I would be content with any digital communication that is not a text message or equivalent. For example, emails, letters that are attached to emails, and similar. It doesn't include anything handwritten or notes takes of in-person meetings (unless they are later sent, such as minutes attached to an email).
I don't know how to "clarify" investigations. The AFP knows what an investigation is (?). If the letter means 'narrow the scope' of "investigations", that's different. In terms of the communications sub-request, the scope is already narrowed to investigations into sexual offences by ACT Policing investigations where the documents are dated after 1 August 2023 where ACT Policing was intending not to proceed to charges (more or less - I'm summarising the scope, not altering it). I could narrow "sexual offences" to specific criminal offence provisions if that would assist?
Regarding the summaries sub-request, the scope of "investigation" is already fairly narrow (?).
All things considered I don't think the scope is that arduous in terms of searches. There are specific parameters. All the relevant correspondence should be on PROMIS (or at least, case officers identified via PROMIS and ask them). A narrow list of PROMIS cases can be found by searching by case type and/or offence type and/or finalisation status and/or a combination, as applicable to a given sub-request.
Generally speaking I agree to exclude information about natural persons that are not AFP or DPP employees (such as complainants and defendants etc.).
Also, the Sofronoff inquiry, including the response and changes made as a result of by ACT Policing, is a matter of significant and ongoing public interest. This weighs against a practical refusal being made, even if a significant amount of work is required to respond to the request.
Yours sincerely,
Reasonable Prospects