Series Expose: How to orchestrate a Section 110 Application under the GIPA Act 2009
Episode 3: 05.11.2024
Misrepresenting the Facts is Contempt of the Tribunal and Perverting the Course of Justice, but All In A Day's Work for "Team 110". And where is the Information Commissioner to Champion the Correct Statutory Interpretation?
Episode 3: 05.11.2024
Misrepresenting the Facts is Contempt of the Tribunal and Perverting the Course of Justice, but All In A Day's Work for "Team 110". And where is the Information Commissioner to Champion the Correct Statutory Interpretation?
Today’s proceedings concern (2) two issues:1. The Respondent’s Miscellaneous Application for Dismissal of Proceedings2. A Timetable for filing of Statements, Submissions and Evidence should the Miscellaneous Application fail
The timetable for filing statements and submissions includes provision for the Information Commissioner to make a glowing appearance under the GIPA Act 2009. She is known through the annual Right to Know Week campaign to supposedly champion the public’s rights and knowledge to access NSW government information.
The NCAT advises the Information Commissioner about every matter brought to it concerning the GIPA Act 2009, and rightfully so.This being a case of precedent she was expected to put her view forward.
Regrettably there was no sign of her as she is blatantly obviously missing in action. It should be noted she has never once made her glorious appearance at any NCAT matter concerning a Section 110 Order for Webb.
Not once. Not ever. Zilch. Nada. Total Zero interest.
Effectively the Information Commissioner has made her presence known in favour of agencies, but not for Webb in any matter whatsoever.
So much for public advocacy championing to open up government! What a load of hogwash! But it is important to expose her position to the public; the public deserves to know she is biased towards her subordinate agencies, and they have ready access to her; unlike the poor neglected public who cannot get a single meeting.
Webb has already provided submissions to the Tribunal to support the Misc Application, dated 14th October 2024.
Webb provided extensive commentary on abuse of process, collateral purpose and lack of jurisdiction.
However today it was abundantly clear the presiding Tribunal member did not read anything. Worse still, if that were possible, she did not have a full and proper understanding of the legislation and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to properly determine the Section 110 Application.
The case hinged on Webb’s ability to provide verbal submissions, supported by caselaw in particular her earlier case of Webb v Port Stephens Council (2020) NSWCATAP 152 a case which made clear those accused of acting in concert of which the Applicants relied, did not qualify as valid Respondents in Section 110 proceedings.
Additionally, the Respondents’ representative Justice Cahill of DCJ repeatedly made the claim that QUOTE “we are within the bounds of Section 110(1)” UNQUOTE which was absolutely false and misleading. Cahill’s sign-off is Dr, so there can be no room to allow he made any mistake. He’s also been a solicitor since 1999, twenty six years.
So no, sorry; this is not a mistake on the part of Cahill, he definitely knows what he’s doing.
The member gave heed to Cahill’s assertions however, that QUOTE “we are within the bounds of Section 110(1)" UNQUOTE.
At one point in the proceedings the member took a short break she said was to “get some guidance”. When she returned she did not indicate if she had actually obtained any, and if so what advice she had obtained, nor from whom, nor did she remotely indicate she had determined to dismiss the Misc Application.
Instead, she returned and commenced formulating a timetable for submissions, statements and evidence for the Section 110 Joint Application. It was just full steam ahead.
Webb commented “It’s going to be a big show!”
Webb would have to wait for the member’s written reasons before deciding whether or not to appeal the apparent dismissal of the Misc Application.
Contact:
Jodie Cobbin, Jodie.cobbin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Justin Cahill, justin.cahill@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Michael McIntosh, Michael.mcintosh@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Jonathan Franklin, Jonathan.franklin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Tony Wickham, tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
Lisa Marshall, lisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
Maria Timothy, maria.timothy@goulburn.nsw.gov.au
Webb has already provided submissions to the Tribunal to support the Misc Application, dated 14th October 2024.
Webb provided extensive commentary on abuse of process, collateral purpose and lack of jurisdiction.
However today it was abundantly clear the presiding Tribunal member did not read anything. Worse still, if that were possible, she did not have a full and proper understanding of the legislation and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to properly determine the Section 110 Application.
The case hinged on Webb’s ability to provide verbal submissions, supported by caselaw in particular her earlier case of Webb v Port Stephens Council (2020) NSWCATAP 152 a case which made clear those accused of acting in concert of which the Applicants relied, did not qualify as valid Respondents in Section 110 proceedings.
Additionally, the Respondents’ representative Justice Cahill of DCJ repeatedly made the claim that QUOTE “we are within the bounds of Section 110(1)” UNQUOTE which was absolutely false and misleading. Cahill’s sign-off is Dr, so there can be no room to allow he made any mistake. He’s also been a solicitor since 1999, twenty six years.
So no, sorry; this is not a mistake on the part of Cahill, he definitely knows what he’s doing.
The member gave heed to Cahill’s assertions however, that QUOTE “we are within the bounds of Section 110(1)" UNQUOTE.
At one point in the proceedings the member took a short break she said was to “get some guidance”. When she returned she did not indicate if she had actually obtained any, and if so what advice she had obtained, nor from whom, nor did she remotely indicate she had determined to dismiss the Misc Application.
Instead, she returned and commenced formulating a timetable for submissions, statements and evidence for the Section 110 Joint Application. It was just full steam ahead.
Webb commented “It’s going to be a big show!”
Webb would have to wait for the member’s written reasons before deciding whether or not to appeal the apparent dismissal of the Misc Application.
Contact:
Jodie Cobbin, Jodie.cobbin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Justin Cahill, justin.cahill@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Michael McIntosh, Michael.mcintosh@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Jonathan Franklin, Jonathan.franklin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Tony Wickham, tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
Lisa Marshall, lisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
Maria Timothy, maria.timothy@goulburn.nsw.gov.au
Contact us using this form to comment on this article.