Gal v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 294

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Gal v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 294 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 07 November 2023 Decision date: 07 November 2023 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Higgins, Senior Member Decision: 1. A hearing of the applicant's administrative review application is dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. 2. The decision of the respondent, made on 16 March 2022, is affirmed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – access to government information – information not held Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) State Records Act 1998 (NSW) Cases Cited: Commissioner of Police v Danis [2017] NSWCATAP 7 Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Caterina Gal (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicant (Self-Represented) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2022/00090868 Publication restriction: Nil

Reasons for decision

Introduction 1. On 30 March 2022, the applicant, Catrina Gal, lodged the following applications with the Tribunal: 1. An Administrative Review Application form, seeking administrative review of the internal review decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force, made on 16 March 2022, that it did not hold the information for which the applicant had sought access in her access application received by the respondent on 4 February 2022: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act) ss 41 and 58(1)(b). In her access application, dated 28 January 2022, the applicant sought access to a full copy of her 19 June 1997 police interview complete with facial images; 2. An Application for Stay or Interim Order seeking a 'Stay Rejection of Application No REV -2022-0152400' (interim order application). The application reference number cited by the applicant in this application is the same reference number the respondent had cited as its refence number on the 16 March 2022 decision, the subject of the applicant's administrative review application; and 3. An Application for a Summons to be issued to the respondent to produce 'Case File 97001352 – Facial Images 97001353' and the medical records of her grandfather who died in June 1997 (summons application). 1. The applicant's application came before me at a case conference on 2 May 2022. Both the applicant and the solicitor for the respondent appeared, by telephone, at the case conference. 2. During the case conference I: 1. noted that the applicant's interim order application was misconceived in that it was seeking a stay of the decision of the respondent that was the subject of review of her administrative review application; and 2. made orders for the filing and serving of evidence and submissions by the applicant and the respondent in regard to the applicant's administrative review application. Included in the order was a direction that the applicant and the respondent indicate in their respective written submissions whether they considered that the matter was appropriate to be determined, in the absence of a hearing, on the papers under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act). 3. refused the applicant's application for a summons to be issued because the summons sought production of: 1. the documents (information) the subject of the decision of the respondent that was the subject of her administrative review application; and 2. documents which were unrelated to the applicant's access application the subject of the decision of the respondent for which she sought administrative review. 1. Following an extension of time within which the applicant and the respondent were to comply with the orders I made: 1. on 9 May 2022, the respondent provided the Tribunal and the applicant with a bundle of documents which included a copy of the applicant's access application, the respondent's original decision, the applicant's internal review application and the respondent's internal review decision; 2. on 16 May 2022, the applicant provided the Tribunal and the respondent with a copy of her submissions and evidence. In her submissions, the applicant noted the abovementioned applications she had lodged with the Tribunal on 30 March 2022. On the following five hand written pages the applicant noted that she had made her first access application to the respondent in May 2018 and that further access applications were made in November 2020 and June 2021. The applicant went on to explain the circumstances giving rise to her earlier access applications. A copy of each access application and the decisions made by the respondent in regard to the May 2018 access application were attached to the applicant's submissions. Also attached to the applicant's submissions were reports to and of the NSW Coroner and the Victorian Coroner, relating to the 1987 accidental death of her sister and the correspondence the applicant received concerning the probate of her grandfather's estate; 3. on 4 August 2022, the respondent provided the Tribunal with its written submissions and evidence, which included 1. a statement, dated 8 July 2022, by Ian Steptoe (Mr Steptoe), Senior Advisory Officer of the respondent's InfoLink Unit; and 2. a statement, dated 6 July 2022, by Detective Senior Constable Stephen Wilson (Dt.SC Wilson). 1. In its written submission, the respondent submitted that the applicant's administrative review application was suitable for determination on the papers. 2. In her written submissions the applicant did not indicate whether the matter was suitable for determination on the papers. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the issues for determination in the applicant's administrative review application can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties by considering the evidence and submissions provided by the parties and I make an order accordingly: NCAT Act s 50(2).