1 Feb 2007, 09:00

A man applied to Police for a firearms licence. His application was declined. Several members of the public had made statements to Police querying his suitability to have a licence. The man asked to see these statements. The Police refused to provide them, under sections 27(1)(c) and 29(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1993.

The man asked me to investigate the Police's decision to withhold this information.

Section 27(1)(c)

Section 27(1)(c) provides that an agency can refuse to disclose information if the disclosure would be likely “to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences”.

As part of the firearms licensing process, an applicant authorises Police to make enquiries about whether he or she is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. The man involved had done so.

Police often need to receive information from members of the public to be able to assess an applicant's suitability for a licence. It is therefore important that people are not deterred from providing information about applicants.

I considered that people would be often reluctant to give free and frank advice to Police about firearms matters if that information could then be given to the applicant. This was the case here. If people did not give information, this would prejudice the Police's ability to make decisions on applications. Section 27(1)(c) therefore permitted Police to withhold the information in question. Police had a task to perform under the law, which required the free flow of this type of information.

Section 29(1)(a)

Section 29(1)(a) states that an agency may refuse to disclose any information requested if the disclosure would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual.

The statements provided to Police contained information about the people making the statements. Much of the information was more about the other people than about the man. In the circumstances, given the content of the statements, the privacy interests of the people providing the statements outweighed the man's interest in having access to them. I formed the view that releasing the statements would amount to an unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of those people and so the statements could be withheld under section 29(1)(a).

The man was disappointed by my opinion as he wished to take Police to court about the denial of the licence. As part of that process, he wished to question the people who had made the statements to Police. However, I pointed out that the decision to deny him a firearms licence was made by Police, not by the people concerned. It was not clear in this situation that any of the people would be called as witnesses in any court action. Police were therefore entitled to maintain the confidentiality of the statements, at least at this time.

I notified the man of my decision and closed the complaint.

June 2007

Access – Police – Refusal – Unwarranted disclosure of another's affairs – Releasing information likely to “prejudice the maintenance of the law”, Privacy Act 1993, principle 6 s27(1)(c), s29(1)(a).