McDonald v Commissioner of Police New South Wales Police Force (No. 2) [2019] NSWCATAD 151

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: McDonald v Commissioner of Police New South Wales Police Force (No. 2) [2019] NSWCATAD 151 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 31 July 2019 Decision date: 31 July 2019 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: R L Hamilton S.C, Senior Member Decision: 1. The agency's decision is affirmed. 2. A hearing is dispensed with. Catchwords: GOVERNMENT INFORMATION - refusal to deal with application - unreasonable and substantial diversion of the agency's resources Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Freedom of Information Act 1989 Cases Cited: Cianfrano v Premier's Department [2006] NSWADT 137 Commissioner of Police v Danis [2017] NSWCATAP 7 Colefax v Department of Education and Communities No 2 [2013] NSWADT 130 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Richard Herbert McDonald (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: R H McDonald (Applicant self-represented)

Crown Solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/00344990 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. This is a review of another decision by the respondent agency under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act) involving the same parties. The parties have consented to the matter being heard 'on the papers', and I make an order dispensing with a hearing as I am satisfied that the issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties by considering written submissions and other documents or material lodged with or provided to the Tribunal (section 50 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013) . 2. The agency has refused to deal with part of the applicant's GIPA Act application on the ground that to do so would require an unreasonable and substantial diversion of the agency's resources (section 60(1)(a) GIPA Act). 3. The applicant made an application for access to information concerning the total number of all GIPA Act applications to the agency since the introduction of the Act where the decision periods were "incorrectly extended by 15 days because of the agencies (sic) misinterpretation of section 57(2) of the GIPA Act." 4. Through correspondence and negotiation between the parties and release of recent readily available information the period of contention between the parties has been narrowed so as to apply to the time between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2016. 5. The Tribunal's task is to decide whether the agency's reliance on section 60(1)(a) GIPA Act to refused to deal with the narrowed application was justified. The tribunal obtains its jurisdiction to conduct the review from section 100 of the GIPA Act, section 28 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and section 9 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997. 6. The agency carries the onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the decision it has made is the correct and preferable decision section 105(1) GIPA Act. The Tribunal decides the correct and preferable decision on the material that it has before it (Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 section 63(1)).