Suttor v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 318

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Suttor v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 318 Hearing dates: 7 and 24 March 2022 Date of orders: 30 September 2022 Decision date: 30 September 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: C Mulvey, Senior Member Decision: The decision made by the respondent on 11 October 2021 is affirmed Catchwords: GOVERNMENT INFORMATION – Public access - reasonable search – s 53 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Cases Cited: Camilleri v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 5 Miriani v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 187 Smith v Commissioner of Police [2012] NSWADT 85 Stanley v Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWCATAD 123 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Donald Suttor (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/00296811 Publication restriction: None

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 19 October 2021, Mr Donald Suttor ("the applicant") lodged with the Tribunal an application for administrative review of a decision made by the Commissioner of Police ("the respondent") on 11 October 2021. The decision concerns an access application for information pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) ("GIPA Act"). In short, the applicant is not satisfied that the respondent has disclosed information about the use of body worn video (BWV) by police officer, Sergeant White. 2. The proceedings were first listed for determination on 7 March 2022. However, due to a witness of the respondent, Mr David Williams, only being able to participate in the hearing by telephone and not by AVL, the applicant sought an adjournment, which was not opposed. I allowed the adjournment and note that at the time of the hearing Mr Williams was in an area of Sydney which was flood affected. He made his best efforts to participate in the hearing by telephone. I decided the matter should be adjourned to allow Mr Williams to participate in the hearing by AVL, and also at a time when he was not dealing with the effects of the NSW floods. The matter was re-listed on 24 March 2022.