When Sarah* got a call from the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale earlier this year a familiar panic set in.
They were notifying her that complaints she had made to the shire against her abusive ex-partner four years ago were being requested under Freedom of Information (FOI).
Sarah’s ex purchased the property beside hers after they separated around a decade ago. From his vantage point next-door he then continued his pattern of coercive control.
Sarah would come home to find parts of her property sabotaged, and there were instances where neighbouring properties were also put at risk. One well-documented instance involved a large fire on a total fire ban day.
After escalating threats to Sarah and her family, she had to leave her home under duress, and go non-contact on everything and everyone she had known before.
“I had to protect myself and walk away from something I’d built over many years,” she said.
“It’s taken four years to get back on track, and I was finally in a good place.”
But just one phone call from the SJ Shire took her right back to that place of fear and vulnerability again.
Sarah was given the right to provide comment about the FOI request and she informed the shire there was a clear and documented history of domestic abuse, and asked them to withhold the information.
In spite of this, the shire decided to grant her abuser access to the complaints, pending a review process.
“Your objections to the release of any of the documents have been considered however, it has been decided that as long as all identifying exempt personal information is redacted the applicant will have no way of knowing who made any of the complaints with any degree of certainty,” the shire explained.
Sarah countered that even the redacted complaints would give away her identity simply through her writing style, and being the only person capable of knowing certain facts disclosed in the complaints.
In fact, there is scope for refusal based on that logic according to the Office of the Information Commissioner WA: “In context, other information may be sufficient to identify or be capable of identifying an individual. For example, a written complaint made to a regulatory body may be “personal information”, even if the name is removed, if the identity of the person could reasonably be ascertained from other information in the complaint”.
The shire explained that if they had have refused, they would have been obligated to state a reason for refusal based on exemptions under the FOI Act 1992, being that it would reveal personal information, and endanger the life or physical safety of a person.
“It was felt that by claiming this exemption alone it would alert the applicant as to who had objected under that exemption,” they explained.
Sarah said she would have much preferred this outcome. But at no point was she given the choice.
Instead, the shire made a unilateral decision and then attempted to coach her on how to delay the release of the documents using the review process.
When the Examiner asked why the shire did not consult Sarah about what the safest/most appropriate course of action for her would be, the question was sidestepped and we were told by Shire President Rob Coales that “no personal information or specific documents relating to the FOI have been released”.
But they will be, if Sarah doesn’t initiate a review process.
“The onus has been put back on me – the victim – to go through all these hoops and processes because the perpetrator has asked for information from the shire,” Sarah said.
She said a refusal from the shire would have instead put the burden of the review process on him. And she feels retraumatised by the situation she has now been put in.
“The worst thing is I don’t even know why he wants to access these complaints, four years later. What reason could he have?” she said.
We asked the shire whether they knew, and they said they didn’t.
But according to the FOI Act, the applicant has a right to access documents regardless of their reason. And if the reason is given, the shire can’t refuse based solely on that reason.
Sarah believes this carte blanche allows abusers to inflict further pain on their victims.
“Just because he’s used the FOI Act, it shouldn’t give him an absolute right, especially when given clear evidence of a history of domestic violence,” Sarah said.
“This system is failing women and it needs to be redressed.
“That’s why I’m speaking to you – to change anything in the system, someone needs to speak up.”
Sarah’s ex has a track record of gaming the system to hurt her.
She said he stole her superannuation after they separated, causing months of back and forth between lawyers.
And he also put a caveat on her property in Landgate, which froze its sale for months, at a time of extreme financial hardship for her.
There are other well-documented cases of DV perpetrators using the family court system, child custody, and even banks to keep instilling fear and control their victims.
“When the systems that are meant to keep you safe don’t, in some ways that’s even more frightening,” Sarah said.
We asked the shire whether it feels that the current FOI system works to ensure the safety of domestic violence survivors, and whether it is doing anything to advocate for reform in this space.
“The shire works within the state government legislation as per the Freedom of Information Act,” President Coales said.
“The shire’s senior executive team are happy to meet with individuals who feel like there may be domestic violence implications to any Freedom of Information request.
“The shire also recommends people who are concerned in relation to current legislation get in touch with their local Member for Parliament to advocate for reform.”
Sarah is angry with the shire for “hiding behind the FOI Act”.
“I’m very upset with the shire. They had the power to refuse him, and they chose not to,” she said.
“I don’t feel they’ve properly considered the impact this is having on my life.
“They are not acting in a way aligned with their duty of care.”
To add ballast to Sarah’s criticism of the shire for its failure to protect victims, the Examiner was informed that shire staff failed to redact names from our enquiry before circulating it to all councillors – despite our explicit request for them to do so.
*Real name has been changed to protect identity
