PANOS PANAYIOTOU No Attendance v SOUTH AUSTRALIA POLICE In Person [2026] SASC 51

On Appeal from SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (MEMBER A REILLY) 2025/SA002472 Appellant: PANOS PANAYIOTOU No Attendance Respondent: SOUTH AUSTRALIA POLICE In Person Counsel: MS D SEAL - Solicitor: CROWN SOLICITOR (SA) Hearing Date/s: 23/02/2026, 25/03/2026 File No/s: CIV-25-013019 B SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Appeal to a Single Judge) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. PANAYIOTOU v POLICE [2026] SASC 51 Judgment of the Honourable Justice Gray (ex tempore) 25 March 2026 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - REVIEW OF DECISIONS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS - STATUTORY APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES TO COURTS On 14 June 2025, the applicant applied to the South Australia Police (‘SAPOL’) Freedom of Information Unit for access to documents, resulting in the identification of a single document (Special Tasks and Rescue (STAR) Group Recruitment, Assessment and Selection Manual), which SAPOL refused to release by initial determination dated 15 July 2025. That refusal was upheld on internal review on 18 July 2025. Following an application by the applicant to SACAT for external review under s 40(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA), SACAT affirmed the internal review determination as the correct and preferable decision. The applicant now appeals from the decision of SACAT. The applicant contends that there is evidence that the Tribunal member may not have considered relevant information when reaching their conclusions; that the Tribunal did not mention critical submission evidence pertaining to Department of Defence FOl 0084/24/25; and that the Tribunal erred in paragraph [23] of its reasons because the fitness requirements are not comparable to competency requirements. Held, refusing leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal: (1) The Tribunal, in conducting the review, clearly set out the findings made as to why the manual was exempt and assessed whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. The Tribunal considered the question of whether the manual could be released with part of the manual redacted. The applicant has not established error in the approach of the Tribunal. [20]-[21] (2) No error was identified in the Tribunal’s factual findings concerning the STAR force. The applicant did not identify error in the manner in which the Tribunal assessed the public -- 1 of 8 -- interest. The substance of the Tribunal’s findings was that disclosure of the relevant information could significantly compromise public safety by undermining the effectiveness of the screening and selection methodologies employed in police recruitment and training processes. [25]–[27] -- 2 of 8 -- PANAYIOTOU v POLICE [2026] SASC 51 Civil: Single Judge Appeal 1 GRAY J (ex tempore): This matter concerns an appeal from a decision of SACAT affirming a decision of South Australia Police (‘SAPOL’) to refuse to release a document pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA) (‘FOI Act’). 1 The applicant, Panos Panayiotou, sought from the respondent ‘documents pertaining to SAPOL STAR [Special Tasks and Rescue] Group/Force…which describe fitness/mentality requirements/training documents.’2 2 By notice of appeal filed on 4 November 2025, the applicant complains against the decision on a number of grounds.3 At the first hearing of this matter, the applicant, who was self-represented, confined his appeal to the following grounds.4 Firstly, the applicant contends in Ground 1 that there is evidence that the Tribunal member may not have considered relevant information when reaching their conclusions. Secondly, the applicant contends in Ground 2 that the Tribunal did not mention critical submission evidence pertaining to Department of Defence FOl 0084/24/25. Thirdly, the applicant presses part of Ground 5 of his appeal that alleges that the Tribunal erred in paragraph [23] of its reasons, as the applicant alleges that fitness requirements are not comparable to competency requirements.5 3 The respondent contends that the applicant, in his notice of appeal or submissions, does not disclose any appealable error and raises irrelevant matters.6 The respondent submits that the grounds do not identify any error of law, jurisdictional error, denial of procedural fairness, or logically probative misapprehension of the evidence by the Tribunal.7 Background and nature of appeal 4 On 14 June 2025, the applicant made an application to the Freedom of Information Unit of SAPOL to access certain documents. 1 The South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘SACAT’ or ‘the Tribunal’). 2 Panayiotou v South Australian Police [2025] SACAT SA002472, at [1] (Member Reilly) (‘Tribunal Decision’); Panos Panayiotou, ‘Appeal Book’, Submission in Panayiotou v Commissioner of Police, CIV-25-013019, 15 December 2025, at 3 (‘Appeal Book’). 3 Panos Panayiotou, ‘Notice of Appeal’, Submission in Panayiotou v Commissioner of Police, CIV-25- 013019, 23 October 2025 (FDN 1) (‘Notice of Appeal’). 4 Transcript of Proceedings, Panayiotou v Commissioner of Police (Supreme Court of South Australia, CIV-25-013019, Gray J, 23 February 2026) 9.12-20 (‘T’). 5 See Notice of Appeal (n 3). See also T 10-11. 6 Commissioner of Police, ‘Written Submissions of the Respondent’, Submission in Panayiotou v Commissioner of Police, CIV-25-013019, 18 February 2026, at [69] (FDN 10) (‘Respondent’s Written Submissions’). 7 Respondent’s Written Submissions (n 6) at [69]. -- 3 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 51 Gray J 2 5 SAPOL identified one document as falling within the request, the Special Tasks and Rescue (STAR) Group Recruitment, Assessment and Selection Manual (‘the Manual’). 6 On 15 July 2025, Sergeant Christian Ainley, of the SAPOL Freedom of Information Unit, made an initial determination to refuse the release of the Manual (‘Initial Determination’). 7 The applicant contended rationale for refusal is very sound, however there is reasonable suspicion that portions of the identified document would not be covered by the exemptions claimed; and there are more documents in scope which have not been itemised.8 8 On 18 July 2025, FOI Officer, Chris Andrews, completed the internal review and confirmed the Initial Determination (‘Internal Review Determination’). 9 On 19 July 2025, the Applicant applied to SACAT for external review of the Internal Review Determination. Under s 40(2)(a) of the FOI Act, a person who is aggrieved by a determination made by an agency following an internal review may apply for a review under s 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) (‘SACAT Act’). 10 SACAT confirmed the Internal Review Determination as being the correct and preferrable decision and affirmed that decision.9 Statutory basis of the appeal and relevant principles 11 An appeal to this Court from a decision of a senior member requires leave.10 This Court should only grant leave to appeal from a SACAT internal review decision where the appeal is reasonably arguable, and the subject matter is of sufficient substance to justify consideration.11 12 It is important that leave is not granted as a matter of routine. SACAT is a specialist tribunal, and the granting of leave too readily would undermine the legislative intention to establish SACAT as a specialist tribunal.12 8 Tribunal Decision (n 2) at [4]; Appeal Book (n 2) at 3. 9 See Tribunal Decision (n 2) at [41]; Appeal Book (n 2) at 8. 10 South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) s 71(2); Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) r 213.1. 11 See, as to being reasonably arguable: Jackson v Lepp Investments Pty Ltd [2016] SASC 62; (2016) 125 SASR 1 at 5-6, [19]-[20] (Parker J); Pix v South Australian Housing Trust [2016] SASCFC 57; (2016) 125 SASR 10 at 11, [3] (Kourakis CJ, with Bampton and S Doyle JJ agreeing). See, as to substance: Aldridge v Registrar of Firearms (SA) [2022] SASC 5 at 9, [33] (Parker J). 12 Varricchio v Wentzel [2016] SASC 86; (2016) 125 SASR 191 at 198, [37] (S Doyle J). -- 4 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 51 Gray J 3 13 The overarching consideration is the interests of justice.13 Encompassed by this consideration is whether there is utility in the appeal.14 14 Should a grant of leave be given, an appeal to this Court from a decision of SACAT is by way of rehearing.15 Inferences of fact can be drawn from evidence and materials before the Court and further evidence or material can be submitted to the Court if it is thought fit.16 The Court may affirm, vary or set aside the decision of the Tribunal, and remit the matter for reconsideration in accordance with any directions should that be considered appropriate.17 Consideration 15 I consider the issues raised on this appeal by reference to the grounds advanced by the applicant. Whilst I have summarised the contentions advanced by the parties above, I have had regard to the detailed written submissions filed by the parties and to the oral submissions advanced by the applicant and the respondent on 23 February 2026. 16 I note that at the previous hearing of this matter the applicant made submissions via telephone and then the phone call was terminated shortly after the respondent commenced submissions. The matter was adjourned until today and the applicant was put on notice that failure to attend in person on the adjourned date or any failure to connect via AVL may result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution or otherwise being heard and determined in the absence of the applicant. 17 There was no appearance when this matter was first called on today shortly after the listed time. The matter was then recalled some 15 minutes later and non-appearance was proved. In my view, it is preferable having heard argument on this matter to consider the matters on its merits. I address the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal by reference to the grounds pursued by the applicant. 18 The first ground raised by the applicant is that there is evidence that the Tribunal member may not have considered relevant information when reaching their conclusions. The second ground concerns that the Tribunal did not mention critical submission evidence pertaining to Department of Defence FOl 0084/24/25. As the applicant explained these grounds in oral submissions,18 the applicant’s complaint is that firstly, the Tribunal did not consider relevant decisions made by the Department of Defence in respect of requests made pursuant to the Freedom 13 Jackson v Lepp Investments Pty Ltd [2016] SASC 62; (2016) 125 SASR 1 at 5, [19] (Parker J); Pix v South Australian Housing Trust [2016] SASCFC 57; (2016) 125 SASR 10 at 11, [3] (Kourakis CJ, with Bampton and S Doyle JJ agreeing). 14 Kemp v Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner [2025] SASC 56 at [81] (B Doyle J). 15 South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) s 71(3a). 16 South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) s 71(3b). 17 South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) s 71(4). 18 T 5-7(especially T 5.11-20), T 37-38 and T 7.16-21. -- 5 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 51 Gray J 4 of Information Act 1982 (Cth) seeking fitness standards for the army reserve.19 In effect, the applicant advances in the submissions on 23 February 2026 that the Tribunal should have considered whether the document sought could have been released in part and whether that should have been done, having regard to other decisions made by the Department of Defence Commonwealth. 19 The difficulty that the applicant encounters in respect of these grounds is that the applicant has not established error in the approach that the Tribunal took. The Tribunal specifically noted at paragraph [18] the reliance that the applicant sought to place on the Commonwealth’s decision.20 The Tribunal, in conducting the review, clearly set out the findings that the Tribunal made as to why the manual was exempt.21 The Tribunal set out the assessment conducted as to whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest, and clearly articulated the factors in favour of disclosure and against disclosure, and the reasons for the finding made. The Tribunal inter alia held:22 …The Tribunal is satisfied that disclosure of the Manual is not in the public interest for the reasons identified by the Respondents; namely, disclosure of the information would have on the impact on the effectiveness of SAPOL’s recruitment processes, and an adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel by the agency. The Tribunal also accepts that disclosure of the information would have an impact on the effectiveness of procedures or methods for the protection of public safety. For this reason, the Tribunal is satisfied that the balance of the public interest is against disclosure of the Manual. 20 The Tribunal then goes on to consider the question of whether the Manual could be released with part of the Manual redacted. In this context, the Tribunal returns to and considers the approach taken in the Department of Defence FOl 0084/24/25 decision that the applicant relies upon. The Tribunal then concludes that the nature of the Manual is such that its content is all subject to exemption under ss 4, 9 and 16 of the FOI Act. On this basis, the Tribunal considered it inappropriate to order the release of a redacted version of the document.23 21 It follows that, to the extent that the applicant makes complaint on this appeal that the Tribunal failed to consider the Department of Defence FOl 0084/24/25 decision, that aspect of Grounds 1 and 2 are not made out. The decision was specifically and appropriately considered by the Tribunal.24 To the extent that the applicant asserts that the Tribunal did not consider whether part of the Manual could have been released, that aspect of Grounds 1 and 2 is not made out. This issue was specifically addressed by the Tribunal. 19 South Australia Police, ‘Respondent’s Appeal Book’, Submissions in Panayiotou v Commissioner of Police, CIV-25-013019, 18 February 2026, at 13 (FDN 9) (‘Respondent’s Appeal Book’): see defence FOI 406/23/24. 20 Tribunal Decision (n 2) at [18]; Respondent’s Appeal Book (n 19) at 23. 21 Tribunal Decision (n 2) at [30] - [32]; Appeal Book (n 2) at 7-8. 22 Tribunal Decision (n 2) at [36]; Appeal Book (n 2) at 7. 23 Tribunal Decision (n 2) at [38]; Appeal Book (n 2) at 7-8. 24 Tribunal Decision (n 2) at [18], [38]; Respondent’s Appeal Book (n 19) at 23, 26. -- 6 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 51 Gray J 5 22 It follows that I find there is no merit in Grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal. 23 The final complaint advanced by the applicant is that the Tribunal erred in paragraph [23] of its reasons, as the applicant states that “fitness requirements are not comparable to competency requirements.”25 24 The Tribunal at paragraph [23] held: The Respondents also raised a further ground for exemption under s 4(2)(a)(iv) for ‘documents affecting law enforcement and public safety’. They stated, ‘Disclosing information that outlines the recruitment and training processes for police officers and other law enforcement personnel could significantly compromise public safety, as it may undermine the effectiveness of the methods used to ensure that only qualified and suitable individuals are selected for these critical roles. By enabling individuals to exploit or manipulate the information contained within the Relevant Document, the integrity of the recruitment process, particularly the ability to identify and hire competent STAR police officers, could be jeopardised, leading to serious consequences for public safety and trust in law enforcement’. (citations omitted) 25 The Tribunal at paragraph [23] is setting out the submission advanced by the respondent to support the exemption under s 4(2)(a)(iv) of the FOI Act concerning ‘documents affecting law enforcement and public safety’.26 The Tribunal addresses this issue further and makes the following findings:27 The STAR force is an important public institution. The Force engages in some of the most difficult and potentially controversial operations of SAPOL. There is clearly a public interest in information that can promote understanding of the role of the STAR force, its place within SAPOL, and the way it is constituted and maintained, including its recruitment processes. The Tribunal accepts that the STAR manual contains information which is of interest to the public in the operation of the STAR force. On the other hand, because of its specialised role within SAPOL, there is particular sensitivity around the Force’s operations. The STAR Manual which is subject of the FOI application is titled: ‘STAR Operations: Recruitment, Assessment & Selection Manual’. It is marked ‘OFFICIAL: Sensitive’. It has a focus on all aspect of recruitment – eligibility, assessment selection criteria, training and development. It contains information relevant to those involved in the recruitment process. Some of the information about these matters will be communicated to the public in a way that maintains the integrity of the recruitment process… 26 The Tribunal then goes on to make findings concerning the public interest that I have set out above. The applicant has not identified error in either the factual findings made by the Tribunal concerning the STAR force, nor has the applicant identified error in the manner in which the Tribunal has assessed the public interest. The substance of the Tribunal’s findings was that disclosure of the relevant information could significantly compromise public safety by undermining the effectiveness of the screening and selection methodologies employed in police recruitment and training processes. The applicant has not established that there was 25 Notice of Appeal (n 2); T 10-11. 26 Tribunal Decision (n 2) at [23]; Respondent’s Appeal Book (n 19) at 23. 27 Tribunal Decision (n 2) at [36]; Respondent’s Appeal Book (n 19) at 25. -- 7 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 51 Gray J 6 error in the approach that the Tribunal took, or that there was a requirement for the Tribunal to consider separately which aspects of the Manual related to fitness requirements and which aspects related to competency requirements. The Tribunal found the entirety of the Manual was subject to exemption under ss 4, 9 and 16 of the FOI Act.28 It follows that there is no merit in the aspects of Ground 5 that the applicant pursues. 27 It follows that I find there is no merit in the aspect of Ground 5 of the appeal that the applicant advances. Conclusion and orders 28 The applicant has not established any reason warranting a grant of leave to appeal.29 The grounds of appeal which the applicant seeks to raise are not of sufficient merit to justify a grant of leave to appeal. The applicant confined the aspects of appeal to those that I have addressed above, and I have found no merit in any of the Grounds pursued. The application for leave to appeal is refused. 29 The orders of this Court are: 1. Leave to appeal is refused. 2. Application to appeal is dismissed. 28 Tribunal Decision (n 2) at [38]; Respondent’s Appeal Book (n 19) at 26. 29 See, as to being reasonably arguable: Jackson v Lepp Investments Pty Ltd [2016] SASC 62; (2016) 125 SASR 1 at 5-6, [19]-[20] (Parker J); Pix v South Australian Housing Trust [2016] SASCFC 57; (2016) 125 SASR 10 at 11, [3] (Kourakis CJ, with Bampton and S Doyle JJ agreeing). See, as to substance: Aldridge v Registrar of Firearms (SA) [2022] SASC 5 at 9, [33] (Parker J). -- 8 of 8 --