On the 5th of February, under Our ref: CASE-20246844, a formal complaint was submitted to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC) regarding serious concerns related to data handling, transparency, and procedural fairness. The complaint specifically referenced Doc ref: CD/25/5885, highlighting potential breaches of data protection laws and procedural irregularities in handling sensitive information.

The issues raised in this complaint align with broader concerns explored in The Stealing of Emily series, particularly those outlined in The Stealing of Emily: Closed Material Procedures (‘secret courts’), which critically examines secretive legal practices and their impact on justice, family rights, and due process.

The OVIC complaint underscores the ongoing fight for accountability in cases where legal institutions and public bodies operate without proper oversight, further reinforcing the themes of transparency, justice, and the rights of individuals that are central to The Stealing of Emily books.

Further developments on this case will be monitored closely, with updates provided as they unfold.

Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC)
PO Box 24274
Melbourne, VIC 3001
Email: enquiries@ovic.vic.gov.au

Subject: Request for Review – IBAC’s Failure to Provide FOI Documents Operation Dunham

Dear OVIC,

I am writing to formally request a review of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC)’s handling of my Freedom of Information Request (FOIR), reference CASE-20246844, submitted on 6 December 2024. IBAC has failed to provide full access to the requested documents, including relevant information that is likely to be in the public domain. Additionally, IBAC’s response does not acknowledge or reference key records, including evidence relating to Matthew Dunkley’s misconduct and any tapped phone recordings associated with Operation Dunham.

Grounds for Review

1. Failure to Provide Requested Documents
   • IBAC has not disclosed relevant information under my FOIR, nor have they provided a valid justification for withholding it.
2. Omission of Publicly Available Information
   • IBAC’s response fails to reference known public domain information related to Operation Dunham, including tapped phone recordings and misconduct records.
   • Under FOI law, IBAC is required to point to any relevant public records even if they are exempt from release under my request.
3. Failure to Meet FOI Obligations
   • IBAC has not adequately identified or justified withholding all records relating to Matthew Dunkley’s conduct.
   • Their response does not provide reasons for excluding key materials from disclosure.

Requested Action

I respectfully request that OVIC:

• Conduct an independent review of IBAC’s decision regarding my FOI request.
• Require IBAC to disclose all non-exempt documents related to my request.
• Ensure IBAC acknowledges and references public domain records related to Operation Dunham.
• Provide a detailed explanation if any information continues to be withheld.

I have attached copies of my original FOI request and IBAC’s response for your reference. Please confirm receipt of this request and advise on the next steps in the review process.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

—

Kind Regards
Mr. Martin Newbold