Wilde v University of Sydney [2002] NSWSC 954

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Wilde v University of Sydney [2002] NSWSC 954 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20550 of 2001 HEARING DATE(S) : 25/09/02, 10/10/02 JUDGMENT DATE : 15 October 2002

PARTIES : Taragh Wilde v University of Sydney JUDGMENT OF : Acting Justice Macready at 1

COUNSEL : Plaintiff appeared in person Miss J. Oakley for defendant SOLICITORS : Eakin McCaffery Cox for defendant CATCHWORDS : Administrative law - whether compliance with procedures under bylaws a condition of jurisdiction - legislative purpose - investigation - no denial of natural justice. DECISION : Paragaraph 39

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

Acting Justice Macready

Tuesday 15 October 2002

20550/2001 Taragh Wilde v The University of Sydney JUDGMENT 1 His Honour: These are proceedings which the plaintiff brings in which she seeks certain declarations that steps which the defendant University has taken in respect of certain charges of student misconduct were in breach of the bylaws of the University and that in the commencement of such proceedings she was not accorded natural justice. A history of the events in question 2 During the year 2000 and up until approximately 12 December of that year the plaintiff was enrolled as a postgraduate student in the department of history. She was completing her Master of Arts degree at the time. 3 On 23 September 2000 while walking through the grounds of the University at about 1.00 am the plaintiff had an altercation with three University patrol officers. The police were called and they took the plaintiff to a police station where she was charged with assault. 4 On 11 October 2000 the plaintiff pleaded guilty to the charge of assault. After finding the charge proved the magistrate dismissed the charge with no conviction recorded as the plaintiff had an unblemished record. 5 On 16 October the plaintiff says that while she was walking along Lawson Street, Darlington an unidentified patrol officer in a University security service vehicle used offensive and threatening language to her. 6 On 6 November 2000 University patrol officer Fergusson entered the flat that the plaintiff occupied on the University grounds. This was at about 11:30 pm in the evening and he did so because of reports of loud music coming from the flat. The plaintiff had fallen asleep and she awoke to find the patrol officer in her room. She alleges that he had disturbed various of her possessions and refused to identify himself. 7 On 10 November 2000 the plaintiff wrote a four-page letter that she gave to the University in which she described in detail each of these three incidents to which I have referred. In the letter she described herself as having been the centre of a campaign of harassment by the younger and aggressive members of the security staff. On receipt of the letter the University asked a Dr Tillett to inquire into and report on the three matters. 8 Dr Tillett's first report concerned the September incident and the executive summary of the report was forwarded to the plaintiff under cover of the letter of 12 December 2000. In his report Dr Tillett found that the allegations made by the plaintiff could not be substantiated and he also found that the patrol officers had conducted themselves reasonably under the circumstances and had reasonable cause to require the plaintiff to provide evidence of her identity, which she failed to do. In the letter the Vice-Chancellor indicated that in the light of the findings of Dr Tillett he would have to consider whether it would be appropriate to instigate misconduct proceedings against the plaintiff under Chapter 8 of the University of Sydney Bylaws 1999, which deals with misconduct of students enrolled at the University. 9 On 26 January 2001 Dr Tillett completed his reports in respect of the other two incidents. In respect of the October incident he found the allegations not substantiated and in respect of the November incident he found that the patrol officer had failed to identify himself to the plaintiff, as he was required to do. The other allegations he found not substantiated. 10 In the letter of 12 February 2001 which enclosed copies of Dr Tillett's findings the Vice-Chancellor said that he had determined that it would be appropriate to commence misconduct proceedings but as the plaintiff had not re-enrolled he was unable to commence such proceedings. The plaintiff in due course enrolled again in the year 2001 and as a result on 10 April 2001 the Vice-Chancellor wrote and notified the plaintiff under clause 63 (1) of the by-laws of three instances of alleged misconduct. The three instances were: -- "1. That you repeatedly failed, without reasonable cause, to respond to patrol officers Evan's and Day's reasonable and lawful requests to provide them with a means of identification and inform them of your purpose for being on the Camperdown campus in the early morning of 23 September 2000. 2. That you, without reasonable cause, physically assaulted patrol officer Day in the early morning of 23 September 2000 by kicking him. 3. That you, without reasonable cause, continued to attempt to physically assault patrol officers Day and Evans while seeking to free yourself from their physical restraint of you including spitting on officer Day's face and upper body."