The complainant had requested access to personal information about himself held by the Commerce Commission. The Commission was investigating a complaint that a number of companies in the same business in the Auckland area had been party to price fixing agreements. The Commission wished to interview the complainant in regard to this. The Commission in the course of its investigation had interviewed other people, obtained documents pursuant to search warrants and created internal memoranda and documents. The complainant sought access to any personal information contained in these documents prior to any further interview with the Commission.

In refusing access to this information the Commission relied on section 27(1)(c) of the Privacy Act. This section provides good reason to refuse a request if the disclosure of the information would be likely -

"To prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation and detection offences and the right to a fair trial"

I noted that the Commerce Commission has a statutory role to ensure compliance with the Commerce Act. This includes investigating whether contracts or agreements for substantially lessening competition have been made. In carrying out investigations in respect of this it will often be necessary to gather information about individuals as part of the investigative process. I noted that the responses by the complainant to certain questions posed (which were to be based on the information at issue) would assist the Commission in deciding what the next step should be in the investigation process. This is a common investigative technique used by organisations which have a maintenance of the law function. In such circumstances if the complainant were to have access to the information before the Commission has had the opportunity to pose its questions and gauge the response, then the efficacy of the whole investigative process would be diminished and the Commission would be prejudiced in its investigation of whether or not an agreement that substantially lessened competition had occurred.

I therefore took the view that section 27(1)(c) provided the Commission with good reason to refuse the complainants request on the basis that the disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law.

I noted however, that this finding was based on the stage which the investigation had reached. Once the interview had been concluded and the Commission had formed a decision then this concern would no longer be relevant.

Refusal of access to personal information - Information privacy principles 6 - section 27(1)(c) of the Privacy Act 1993

Access to personal information - Commerce Commission - Refusal - Prejudice to ongoing investigation likely - Privacy Act 1993, s 27(1)(c) - Information privacy principle 6