1 Feb 2007, 09:00

Students at a university made complaints about a fellow student, including that his behaviour was threatening. For example, he appeared to be fascinated with firearms, and had made various statements that could be interpreted as threats to use a gun against others.

The university investigated the allegations and concluded that there were serious concerns about the student's mental health. It believed he posed a risk to staff and students at the university.

The student requested access to all the information the university held about him. For the most part, the university complied with his request. The student was made broadly aware of the nature of the complaints. However, the university withheld some information from him that related to the university counsellor's assessments of his mental health, and comments from various named individuals about his behaviour. The student complained to me about the fact that the university had withheld information from him.

Principle 6 and section 27(1)(d)

Principle 6 of the Privacy Act provides individuals with a right to access information about themselves. There are several exceptions to this right, however. One exception is set out in section 27(1)(d) of the Act which states:

(1) An agency may refuse to disclose any information requested
pursuant to principle 6 if the disclosure of the information would be likely –

(d) to endanger the safety of any individual

“Likely” means only that there must be a real risk of something occurring. The agency has to provide sufficient evidence to indicate that a danger in fact exists.

Here, the university explained that releasing the remaining information would put those who had complained at risk from the student, given the nature of his behaviour. I examined the information that had been withheld, in the context of the accounts (including professional accounts) of the student's behaviour. I accepted that there was a real risk that releasing it would endanger the safety of other people. I therefore informed the student that the university could withhold the information and that there was no interference with his privacy.

The student disagreed that he posed a risk to others. He was also concerned at the way in which the university had investigated the complaints about him. However, this was not a matter that I could assist him with. I therefore closed the file.

June 2007

Access to personal information – university – refusal – safety – principle 6, section 27(1)(d)