QQ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No.2) [2011] NSWADT 79

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: QQ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No.2) [2011] NSWADT 79 Hearing dates: 8 September 2010, 29 September 2010 Decision date: 18 April 2011 Before: S Montgomery, Judicial Member Decision: The matters are to be listed for further directions on Tuesday 19 April 2011 at 9.30 am Catchwords: Summons to produce documents - legitimate forensic purpose - legal professional privilege Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Cases Cited: General Manager, WorkCover Authority of NSW v Law Society of NSW (2006) 65 NSWLR 502; [2006] NSWCA 84 Grant v Downs ([1976] HCA 63; 1976) 135 CLR 674 Howell v Macquarie University [2008] NSWCA 26 Priest v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 1281 QQ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2011] NSWADT 54 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: QQ (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Counsel : P Knowles, (Applicant) P Ginters, (Respondent) Mitchell Lawyers (Applicant) Henry Davis York (Respondent) File Number(s): 093184 and 093252 Publication restriction: Section 75(2)(b) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies in relation to the identity of the Applicant.

REasons for decision 1In these reasons the names of private individuals have been anonymised so as to preserve the privacy of their personal affairs. The Applicant is referred to as QQ. 2The Applicant is a police officer who is currently suspended. He has commenced two proceedings against the Respondent in the Tribunal. Both proceedings arise from claims under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (the 'PPIP Act'). 3Summonses have been issued in each of the matters and the Respondent objects to the production of documents on the basis of an apparent lack of legitimate forensic purpose, and/or that they are properly subject to a claim of client legal privilege. 4The circumstances of the substantive matters are set out in the decision in QQ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2011] NSWADT 54 that was published on 16 March 2011 ("the March 2011 decision"). I that decision I dealt with the issue of the question of legitimate forensic purpose. I was satisfied that there are concrete grounds for the Applicant's belief that the documents will assist his case. 5The Respondent has sought clarification in relation to that finding in so far as it concerns the following documents: (a) Ms W's response/submission relating to the disciplinary investigation 09/33 [Item 1 of the Applicant's summons dated 28 May 2010 in relation to ADT 093184]; (b) Police complaint file P0601488 relating to alleged unreasonable use of force by the Applicant [Item 1 of the Applicant's summons dated 28 May 2010 in relation to ADT 093252]; (c) Police complaint file P0702087 relating to alleged off-duty misconduct by the Applicant's [Item 2 of the Applicant's summons dated, 28 May 201 0 in relation to ADT 0932521. 6The Respondent has sought clarification as to whether such documents are required to be produced pursuant to the summonses. 7The conclusion in the March 2011 decision that I was satisfied that there are concrete grounds for the Applicant's belief that the documents will assist his case was intended to address each of those documents. I am satisfied that the Applicant has sought the issue of the summonses for a legitimate forensic purpose. 8The Respondent has raised a public interest immunity claim in relation to many of the resisted documents. At this stage the Respondent is not required to produce those documents. A decision will be made with respect to that question after further argument is heard in relation to the public interest immunity claim. 9These reasons address the issue of legal professional privilege raised by the Respondent that was not considered in the March 2011 decision.