| é. NOTE: - NOT APPROPRIATE FOR REPORTING OR FOR GENERAL CIRCULATION (AEW) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. WAG 93 of 1984 GENERAL DIVISTON ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY THE HONOURABLE G.D. CLARKSON 0.C. (SENIOR MEMBER) MR _T.A. WILKINS AND DR J.G. BILLINGS Ra BETWEEN : ARTHUR LETTS Applicant and THE DIRECTOP GENERAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER COURT: Woodward, Toohey and Pincus JJ. DATE: 29 May 1985 PLACE: Perth THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The appeal be dismissed. (Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by 0.36 of the Federal Court Rules). Z. NOTE: - NOT APPROPRIATE FOR REPORTING OR FOR GENERAL CIRCULATION (AEW) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. WAG 93 of 1984 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY THE HONOURABLE G.D. CLARKSON 0.C. (SENIOR MEMBER) MP_I.A. WILKINS AND DR J.G. BILLINGS BETWEEN : ARTHUR LETTS Applicant and THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY Reepcnegent COURT: Woodward, Toohey and Pincus dJ. DATE: 29 May 1985 PLACE: Perth EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT This is an appeal by Mr Arthur Letts who' appears in person, against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which affirmed a decision of the Director General of Social Security that a particular document was exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The document in question was one of two withheld when Mr Letts was given access to the file relating to his pension. It was described by the Director General in the following terms: "Polio 100, the file note dated 12 November 1979, recording information provided by .... alleging that Mr Letts may have been claiming pension in the name of Ryan and ...." The Administrative Appeals Tribunai decided that the document was indeed exempt from disclosure because it fell clearly within s.37(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1992. That section provides: Pal "(1)°R document is an exempt document if its dieclosure under this act would or could reasonably be expected to - fay... {b) disclose, or enable a person toa ascertain, the existence cr identity of a confidential source of information in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law ...." In his amended notice of appeal, whici: the court gave Mr Letts leave to substitute for earlier notices, and which is headed Notice of Proposed Substituted Notice of Appeai and dated 9 May 1985, Mr Letts sought to challenge the decision of the Tribunal. He obviously harbours a deep sense of injustice at the way he claims to have been treated over many years by a number of pclice officers and by other persons in positions of authority. Perhars because of this apparently long-standing sense of griévance, the grounds of appeal and other material set out in the notice range widely over many areas of constitutional and administrative law. The Court has done its best to understand the points which Mr Letts has been trying to make, both in his notice and his address to the Court, but it has been unable to detect any matter at all which would provide Mr Letts with an arguable appeal point. Pursuant to s.44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 this Court can only be concerned with possihle errors of law by the Tribunal, and, having studied the Tribunal's reasons for decision in this matter, we have been able to find no trace of any such error. The esspondent has soucht by notice of motion to have the notice of appeal struck out. However, the Court invited Mr Letts to address 1t generally on his appeal, not merely as to the notice of motion and, having heard him out, we believe that, for the reasons already given, the appropriate order of the Court 1s that the appeal be dismissed. I hereby certify that this and the two (2) preceding pages are a true and accurate copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of The Court a ee | a es Associate to The Hon. Mr Justice Woodward Dated: 23 May 1985