1 Feb 2007, 09:00

A man was interviewed for a position with Police but was unsuccessful. The man then requested his application file. Police forwarded a copy of his file but withheld some information. They said the withheld information was evaluative material and to supply it would breach an express obligation of confidence. The applicant asked this Office to review Police's decision to refuse him access to this information.

Section 29(1)(b) of the Privacy Act provides that an agency may refuse to provide access to personal information if it is evaluative material, and releasing the information would breach a promise that the information, or the identity of the person who supplied it, or both, would be held in confidence. The promise must be made to the person supplying the information.

This Office reviewed the material withheld from the applicant, and I was satisfied it met the criteria of being "evaluative material" in section 29(3). It reflected the opinion of the people whom Police contacted and it was compiled solely for the purpose of determining the applicant's suitability for employment. Furthermore, it was supplied directly to Police under an express promise that the information would be kept strictly confidential (section 29(1)(b)).

The applicant had also signed an authorisation allowing Police to make any enquiries it deemed appropriate for determining his suitability for employment. This authorisation included an acknowledgement that any information supplied in confidence could be withheld under section 29(1)(b).

This situation is fairly common in the recruitment context. It can be frustrating for applicants to be left in the dark, particularly where an application is unsuccessful. Section 29(1)(b) should be interpreted to give maximum information to the requester without breaching confidentiality. There are two ways to do this.

1. Where only the identity of the person providing the information is to remain confidential - as opposed to the information itself - agencies should provide the information without the identity of the provider attached.

2. If the agency is concerned that disclosure of the information as it stands may identify the provider, agencies should consider giving a summary of the information to applicants.

Where the information itself is given in confidence, or where it cannot be released even in summary without identifying the provider, however, the agency is entitled to withhold it entirely.

Here, I was satisfied that the information itself had been given in confidence. Police were therefore entitled to withhold it.

It was my final opinion that the agency had not breached principle 6 and had not caused an interference with the man's privacy. Accordingly, I closed our file on the complaint.

June 2007

Access to personal information - Police - evaluative material - opinion material provided subject to express promise of confidentiality - principle 6, section 29(1)(b), section 29(3)