Beer v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 15

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Beer v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 15 Hearing dates: 12 March 2014 Decision date: 02 May 2014 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: N Hennessy LCM, Deputy President Decision: 1. The appeal against the Tribunal's decision in Beer v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 243 is dismissed. 2. The appeal against the Tribunal's decision in Beer v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 23 is dismissed. Catchwords: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - meaning of 'appealable decision' in s 112 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW) Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW) Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) Cases Cited: AF v HealthQuest (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 42 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peter Beer (Appellant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Beer (Appellant in person) Sparke Helmore (Respondent) File Number(s): 139042 Decision under appeal Citation: [2013]NSWADT 243 [2014] NSWCATAD 23 Date of Decision: 2013-10-04 00:00:00 Before: P Molony, Judicial Member File Number(s): 123342

reasons for decision

Introduction 1Mr Beer has appealed to the Appeal Panel against two decisions of the Tribunal. The first decision was that the Commissioner of Police did not hold certain documents that Mr Beer had applied for under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) and so could not provide those documents to him: Beer v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 243. The second decision was not to prohibit or restrict the disclosure of Mr Beer's name in the reasons for decision: Beer v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 23. We will refer to these decisions as the substantive decision and the anonymisation decision. 2In relation to the substantive decision Mr Beer's grounds of appeal are that: (1)the Tribunal incorrectly found that he believed that he has been under surveillance by unidentified or retired police officers since 1972; and (2)the Tribunal breached his privacy or otherwise treated him inappropriately by including a reference in its decision to the alleged offence about which Mr Beer had been questioned by police in 1972. 3In relation to the anonymisation decision Mr Beer's grounds of appeal are that: (1)s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 makes it an offence for the Tribunal to publish his name; and (2)when determining whether to prohibit or restrict the publication of Mr Beer's name under section 75 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, the Tribunal failed to take into account the public policy considerations reflected in s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987.