Larsson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2016] NSWCATAD 172

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Larsson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2016] NSWCATAD 172 Hearing dates: 19 July 2016 Date of orders: 19 July 2016 Decision date: 19 July 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member Decision: The application is dismissed Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Government Information - jurisdiction Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Stephen Frank Larsson (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: No appearance from either party File Number(s): 1610349

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. Mr Larsson applied to the Tribunal for review of a decision by the Respondent under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ("the GIPA Act"). The matter came before me for a dismissal hearing on 19 July 2016. There was no appearance by either party at that hearing and I dismissed the matter. Mr Larsson has requested written reasons for that decision. These reasons are provided in response to that request. 2. In his application to the Tribunal Mr Larsson stated: My previous application for access to information (No. 130185) was considered, the public interest test duly applied and documents were released. I recently noticed that the (successful) access application was not recorded on the agency's disclosure log. An internal review determined that the documents in question were not considered to be of interest to other members of the public. I disagree with that determination under s.12(2)(e) of the GIPA Act. 1. It appears that this is a reference to the letter dated 16 May 2016 from the Respondent's A/Manager Information Access & Subpoena Unit that was attached to Mr Larsson's application to the Tribunal. That letter stated: I refer for your request for the decision made in relation to IAU File 130185 to be placed on the NSW Police Force Disclosure Log. As previously advised after receiving your phone call the decision was reviewed and it was determined the documents in question were not considered to be of interest to other members of the public which would warrant their inclusion on the disclosure log. Section 25 of the Act states in regards to the disclosure log "the agency decides by deciding to provide access (to some or all of the information applied for) if the information is information that the agency considers may be of interest to other members of the public." I draw your attention to Section 73(1) of the Act which confirms that the agency does not impose any conditions on the use or disclosure of material released under the act and you would be entitled to post the released material on your own website. 1. The matter was listed for a case conference before Senior Member Lucy on 8 July 2016. The result sheet for that conference indicates that Mr Larsson attended that conference. Mr Steptoe appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Senior Member Lucy directed that the matter be listed for dismissal on the basis that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision. 2. As noted above, the matter came before me for a dismissal hearing on 19 July 2016. There was no appearance by either party at that hearing and I dismissed the matter pursuant to section 55(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. 3. Section 55 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 provides: 55 Dismissal of proceedings (1) The Tribunal may dismiss at any stage any proceedings before it in any of the following circumstances: (a) if the applicant or appellant (or, if there is more than one applicant or appellant, each applicant or appellant) withdraws the application or appeal to which the proceedings relate, (b) if the Tribunal considers that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or otherwise misconceived or lacking in substance, (c) if the applicant or appellant (or, if there is more than one applicant or appellant, each applicant or appellant) has failed to appear in the proceedings, (d) if the Tribunal considers that there has been a want of prosecution of the proceedings. (2) The Tribunal may reinstate proceedings that have been dismissed under subsection (1) (c) if the Tribunal considers that there is a reasonable explanation for that failure. 1. As there was no appearance from either party, no argument was presented in regard to the issue of whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision. However, section 55(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 provides that The Tribunal may dismiss proceedings if the applicant has failed to appear in the proceedings. I was satisfied that there was no appearance by Mr Larsson at the dismissal hearing on 19 July 2016. I was also satisfied that as he was present at the case conference before Senior Member Lucy on 8 July 2016 it was reasonable to expect that he would have been aware that the matter was listed for dismissal. On the basis that there was no appearance I ordered that the matter be dismissed pursuant to section 55(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.