Series Expose: How to orchestrate a Section 110 Application under the GIPA Act 2009
Episode 7.1: 10.03.2025
Roll Up! Roll Up! Come and see the Big Show under the Big Top! Come and see the circus! Come one, come all! It’s the greatest show on earth with lots of clowns! And still the Information Commissioner is conspicuous by her absence.
Episode 7.1: 10.03.2025
Roll Up! Roll Up! Come and see the Big Show under the Big Top! Come and see the circus! Come one, come all! It’s the greatest show on earth with lots of clowns! And still the Information Commissioner is conspicuous by her absence.
Diary Note - Respondent 1:
My husband and I were staying in Sydney for the two-day hearing, booked in the night before to avoid potential traffic issues on the day. Even if things finished up on the first day, it would be nice to see the city. I particularly love everything about Sydney, a night or two feels like a holiday.
I’d received an email from Cahill just beforehand stating he intended to cross examine both my husband and I, but there were no Affidavits. Who does he think he is? Dr Cahill. Dr of what? Such an over-inflated ego, might be signs of small man syndrome peeking through that cheap suit. I wasn’t going to let him cross examine either of us anyway; if pressed I would refuse to cooperate and happily face contempt. Anyway, my experience with the NCAT and contempt is there isn’t a member with the courage to do anything; all so gentlemanly and futile. Paul would stay in the hotel for the duration of the hearing, he had work to do and would use the time wisely.
As was our routine, I would call him during any breaks, and we’d meet up afterwards to debrief. Nice meal, nice glass of red wine, him having a beer.
We said our goodbyes and good lucks and I headed off on the two-block short walk to the NCAT building in Goulburn Street.
Exiting the lift I saw my support person already waiting, Phil Walker. We’d become good friends since our initial contact sometime prior; I’d reached out to him for some information about the Section 110 process he’d been through and he was willing to make me a copy of his files. At the time I was documenting the costs to the public on these Section 110 matters. I wanted to know how much it was costing the public for these punitive government agencies to pursue such actions.
Phil was the first victim of a Section 110, back in 2015. It was a shameful decision by the Tribunal with orders in perpetuity against one Council, Pittwater, now Northen Beaches after amalgamation. Of course, Pittwater hasn’t existed since May 2016 but Northen Beaches and NCAT continue to enforce the order. Imagine that for a moment; an order with no time frame, for every access application to an agency which no longer exists, and it hasn’t been extinguished. Of course NCAT had no jurisdiction to issue such an order in the first place, oh well, just a small technicality. Phil wasn’t up for an Appeal at that time, concerned about costs against him. NCAT has no jurisdiction to award costs in GIPA proceedings, but it does, and nobody seems to care that it’s unlawful. Since that decision, every time he wanted Northern Beaches Council information he had to go through the whole Tribunal process including a hearing. And that’s just to get the application TO the Council, that’s before any documents are located, and before any actual decision on whether or not the requested information would be released. The whole Section 110 process is in contradiction to the NCAT Act 2013 Section 36, the just, quick, cheap principle of doing NCAT business. An access application with an agency direct is $30.00, but going through NCAT the stakes are up at an initial cost of $127.00. Then there’s the time involved, the actual hearing and evidence by the agency opposing the access application, any appeal, etc, etc. If the Applicant resides outside of Sydney they are expected to travel for the hearing as AVL’s are becoming more and more scarce; there is an actual application process for that too. Add on the agency’s legal costs as Right to Information Officers hide behind publicly funded solicitors, sometimes barristers. So yes, there is nothing just, quick, or cheap about any of it. And there is no equity.
Phil hadn’t acted out in any way to deserve such a punitive response, it’s not an Access Applicant’s fault an Application is unmeritorious. How are we to know whether or not the information is held or if processing it will take too much time?
I for one never ask for anything I don’t expect to exist, and since the beginning of my GIPA journey I’ve always kept my access applications limited to single topics; this also benefits the agency as there’s less likelihood of confusion. Of course that is entirely dependent on the reading comprehension skills of the officer processing the request….
And despite keeping my access applications succinct on reliance of agency information at first instance, somehow I’ve still managed to get a few unmeritorious applications, and so here I am today, facing this Big Top Circus, without any evidence from the agencies................
Today it was my turn again. And Phil was here to support me. This wasn’t my first Section 110 rodeo, but it was the first time I’d see this show of power against unrepresented Respondents, 2 of which had been dragged into this pretentious legal charade in a desperate collective attempt to set precedent caselaw to allow NSW government agencies to scoop up a group of people with the one Application of this kind.
They were all excited, the Applicants: Justin Cahill the Legal Rep, Jonathan Franklin witness for DCJ, Tony Wickham witness for PSC, and Maria Timothy for GMC.
As usual Wickham was supported by his back-up Council solicitor Lisa Marshall; he never makes a move without holding her hand ever-so-tightly.
Cahill was supported by two junior solicitors.
And entering the hearing room carrying all the boxes and boxes of files was DCJ’s Michael McIntosh, Principal Solicitor. Guess he was cheaper than a courier.
I sat at the far right of the bar table with Phil to my immediate left.
Cahill sat in the middle with his two junior solicitors on his left.
Cahill was not happy. He did not want Phil at the bar table. He did not want me to have support in contrast to his entourage.
I watched the parade of boxes, several copies of each; the left side of the hearing room was flanked by them. Probably designed to intimidate me. It failed.
I’d received the same Applicants’ boxes at my home, I viewed that as stalking behaviours as the documents were delivered digitally as well, so no need for any person to show up at my private residence. The courier demanded to see ID, it just gets worse. If I’d been seen anywhere near the vicinity of these public servants homes’ I’d have been arrested.
I’d opened one of them at the time of receipt, glanced over, picked out the Affidavits and Submissions and didn’t move another page. They could rot right where they were for all I cared. What a disgraceful display of access to resources. What a disgraceful display of waste.
Last night I opened up one box for a second time. Seven big shiny white folders with the Submissions thrown on top. I tried to fit them into a large suitcase to drag them to Sydney. They wouldn’t fit.
Then I thought “stuff this, they’re bound to bring all this crap with them, I’ll leave them to it.” So I attended the hearing with a small wheeled briefcase with just my own submissions, the three Affidavits for cross examination, and of course my questions. If I needed to refer to anything specific I could easily get Cahill to hand up a copy.
The Member entered the room and we were off and running. The parties introduced themselves and I introduced Phil “Senior Member this is Mr Walker, the Tribunal knows him. Mr Walker is my support person.”
I thought Cahill was never going to shut up. What an arrogant, angry little man he is! Seemed as though he didn’t want to be there, he’d been given this dirty job and it was up to him to get the prize, the Golden GIPA Chalice. He probably thought this case was beneath him, after all he’s a doctor…………….
Cahill must have stated “it’s quite complex” a dozen, two dozen, three dozen times.
It wasn’t. This was a grab to silence the public and cause as much public damage to my husband, his company, and me as possible. But mostly me.
It was clear the case was totally reliant on good old Tony Wickham. And why not? He’d had nothing but failures in his endeavours to get a Section 110 Order against me since 2017; invoices and remittance advice notices showed he and Marshall had spent $210,000.00 so far.
With the revelation from DCJ it had clocked up (852) eight hundred and fifty-two hours just getting to the filing of submissions and evidence in December 2024, the costs were over half a million already. And there was still the hearing, travel, lunches, accommodation for the two days, probably a nice bottle of Grange thrown in; why not?! Wickham would be signing off on the expense approvals at his end so no issues there.
The Applicants were claiming the Orders sought were necessary, bleating about my media releases and published articles which needed to be stopped.
But that’s not what a Section 110 Order is for.
They were also claiming they had passed through the preliminary gate of the number of unmeritorious access applications I’d lodged.
But there was no proof they were so.
Boxes and boxes of information, pages and pages of irrelevant material; ASIC searches, Lobbyist Registrations, media articles, access applications, you name it.
But not a single page of evidence to support the claimed unmeritorious access applications were such.
The presiding member repeatedly stated “So much material!” She was right. The intention to overwhelm her was successful.
These colluding public servants had included confidential components to their Affidavits.
Apparently it concerned their fears, concern for personal safety, blah, blah, blah; seeing their names up in lights on my website was supposed to be traumatising.
Basically, we will do whatever we want, you will be powerless to do anything, and if you tell anyone about it you will be traumatising us.
Hmmmm, must be that equity I’ve heard so much about. More realistically it’s about who holds the power, and if you make an issue of our abuse of it, we will cry like the sooks we are.
I repeatedly impressed upon the Member she had no jurisdiction to issue the Order sought, that is Order No. 1.
I repeatedly impressed upon the Member (2) two of the Applicants were disqualified as they did not have the preliminary number of unmeritorious applications to support a Section 110 Application.
I repeatedly impressed upon the Member (2) two of the Respondents were disqualified as neither had any unmeritorious applications at all.
I correctly stated DCJ could make its own Section 110 Application, but that meant separate fresh proceedings.
Not to worry, perhaps these were trivial issues of legal principle.
I sincerely believed this member, with all her GIPA experience including Appeals, had the full grasp of the legislation the good old GIPA Act 2009, that piece of the public’s beneficial legislation the Parliament freely gifted the public. There was no benefit to the government, but they wielded it as though the opposite were true.
The member asked me to get a letter of authority from Paul to represent him. I had been representing Paul since the first matters in 2016. I think he only sat for himself once during all that time.
So we had a lunch break and Team 110 got a confidential session.
I left my bag in the room, my pen engraved with “Justice” still sitting at my place at the bar table; these witnesses wanted their opportunity to cry to the Tribunal and share all their personal feelings, it would be a good show, done in secret, left untested.
But that’s not what a Section 110 is about.
The member was surprised with the request for a confidential component, something generally reserved for the consideration of redacted information, but she allowed it anyway.
And a Section 110 matter is not about any of that.
Anyway, the NCAT Act 2013 Section 49 says “public” to leave the hearing room not “party”. Another error in law to add to the ever-growing list. But NCAT’s been getting away with it for so long why stop now?
I’d called Paul and asked for the letter of authority, he had it ready. It was naturally on DraftCom Pty Ltd letterhead.
Phil and I returned to the hearing room.
I offered up the letter to the member who stated “Oh look it’s obviously her!” That’s right. Team 110 was claiming DraftCom Pty Ltd and Paul were actually responsible for my access applications, despite my documentation since October 2021 being on NSW Freedom of Information letterhead. Cahill was claiming Paul was QUOTE “the mind and will of DraftCom Pty Ltd” UNQUOTE, and as such had to be held to account for anything I did under a Trading As business name.
It was a real stretch for the Applicants and did nothing to hide their collective desperation to get this prize.
And let’s not forget, the whole of the state’s population of right to information & privacy officers were watching this case. The (400) four-hundred strong membership of NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, NIPPN. The use of the term practitioner gives the false impression they are carers of some kind, they are not. If this case got over the line it would open up untold possibilities of control and retaliation; community groups being scooped up in the one net, a Minister’s office and staff; I could see them lined up salivating.
Yes, DCJ and PSC had been members of NIPPN for a long time. No doubt GMC would be joining the flock now, welcomed by new comrades in arms.
My pen was nowhere to be seen. Did one of them steal it?! Did they toss it?! How dare they touch or move my property! But this wasn’t the time to make an issue of that.
Cross examination seemed pretty pointless.
Most notably, I wasn’t permitted to ask about these feelings of insecurity, fear, being harassed.
I wanted to know more. But I wasn’t permitted to test the claims.
DCJ’s Jonathan Franklin was first up. Didn’t really have much to say for himself, but it was clear from Cahill’s questioning everything rested on this claim of fear, concern for personal safety. At the end of the cross examination I asked him directly “And how are you feeling now?”
“Objection!” Couldn’t go there. How predictable.
I also asked Franklin very specifically words to the effect “from every staff member you know who’s contact details have been published on my website, how many are you aware of who have been contacted the direct result of that.”
“None,” Franklin stated.
None. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Diddly-squat.
So where is all this harassment happening? Clearly there was none.
Phil was making lots of notes, watching and listening to the witness’ evidence. Now and then he smiled.
Wickham was next.
Tony Wickham’s hands were shaking the whole time he sat in the chair. What a weak individual who couldn’t stand on his own merit, had to be backed by public resources or he was nothing. He dragged his five folders with him. At least he had his little moment.
But let’s not trivialise his inclusion here; Cahill made him the star, everything relied upon Wickham and all his access applications from me since 2011. Yes 2011. He even included the Informal Applications which don’t count for anything at all. But again, no evidence to support the claimed unmeritorious applications; the trigger for the Section 110 Application. Nothing. Everything else, but no evidence about that. How embarrassing.
But this is NCAT.
Agencies can basically claim anything and NCAT just takes it as gospel.
But members of the public get the totally opposite end of the judicial stick.
I was thankful when the day was over, but knew there was more to come the next day.
I’d have to listen to Cahill drone on and on about “this is very complex”, with him almost reading verbatim his submissions and parts of the Affidavits, the evidence of this one, the evidence of that one.
At one time the member was actually shrieking at him “Mr Cahill!!!” She should have held him in contempt. I’m certain if I’d behaved in that manner she wouldn’t have hesitated to discipline me, no doubt to a resounding applause.
Phil joined Paul and I at a nearby pub for a meal and a drink and we talked about many things apart from the day’s events. He’d be back tomorrow; I was so thankful for his support. “See you tomorrow Phil and thank you so much, we really appreciate it.”
I told Paul about the boxes and boxes of files and Cahill's performance. “It was quite a show. Cahill was very obvious he didn’t want Phil at the bar table. Too bad. Higgins was totally overwhelmed from the start. Cahill kept going and wouldn’t shut up. That guy's a bully. Higgins started saying “Mr Cahill” in efforts to stop him, but he ignored her. She must have said “Mr Cahill!” a half dozen times; finally she was shrieking with her teeth clenched “MR CAHILL!” She had no control over him at all and he had no respect for her whatsoever. And they got their confidential session. I made written submissions opposing any potential for that. I’m guessing she didn’t read anything. It’s just so poor. If this gets across the line we’re appealing, but you already knew that.”
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
My husband and I were staying in Sydney for the two-day hearing, booked in the night before to avoid potential traffic issues on the day. Even if things finished up on the first day, it would be nice to see the city. I particularly love everything about Sydney, a night or two feels like a holiday.
I’d received an email from Cahill just beforehand stating he intended to cross examine both my husband and I, but there were no Affidavits. Who does he think he is? Dr Cahill. Dr of what? Such an over-inflated ego, might be signs of small man syndrome peeking through that cheap suit. I wasn’t going to let him cross examine either of us anyway; if pressed I would refuse to cooperate and happily face contempt. Anyway, my experience with the NCAT and contempt is there isn’t a member with the courage to do anything; all so gentlemanly and futile. Paul would stay in the hotel for the duration of the hearing, he had work to do and would use the time wisely.
As was our routine, I would call him during any breaks, and we’d meet up afterwards to debrief. Nice meal, nice glass of red wine, him having a beer.
We said our goodbyes and good lucks and I headed off on the two-block short walk to the NCAT building in Goulburn Street.
Exiting the lift I saw my support person already waiting, Phil Walker. We’d become good friends since our initial contact sometime prior; I’d reached out to him for some information about the Section 110 process he’d been through and he was willing to make me a copy of his files. At the time I was documenting the costs to the public on these Section 110 matters. I wanted to know how much it was costing the public for these punitive government agencies to pursue such actions.
Phil was the first victim of a Section 110, back in 2015. It was a shameful decision by the Tribunal with orders in perpetuity against one Council, Pittwater, now Northen Beaches after amalgamation. Of course, Pittwater hasn’t existed since May 2016 but Northen Beaches and NCAT continue to enforce the order. Imagine that for a moment; an order with no time frame, for every access application to an agency which no longer exists, and it hasn’t been extinguished. Of course NCAT had no jurisdiction to issue such an order in the first place, oh well, just a small technicality. Phil wasn’t up for an Appeal at that time, concerned about costs against him. NCAT has no jurisdiction to award costs in GIPA proceedings, but it does, and nobody seems to care that it’s unlawful. Since that decision, every time he wanted Northern Beaches Council information he had to go through the whole Tribunal process including a hearing. And that’s just to get the application TO the Council, that’s before any documents are located, and before any actual decision on whether or not the requested information would be released. The whole Section 110 process is in contradiction to the NCAT Act 2013 Section 36, the just, quick, cheap principle of doing NCAT business. An access application with an agency direct is $30.00, but going through NCAT the stakes are up at an initial cost of $127.00. Then there’s the time involved, the actual hearing and evidence by the agency opposing the access application, any appeal, etc, etc. If the Applicant resides outside of Sydney they are expected to travel for the hearing as AVL’s are becoming more and more scarce; there is an actual application process for that too. Add on the agency’s legal costs as Right to Information Officers hide behind publicly funded solicitors, sometimes barristers. So yes, there is nothing just, quick, or cheap about any of it. And there is no equity.
Phil hadn’t acted out in any way to deserve such a punitive response, it’s not an Access Applicant’s fault an Application is unmeritorious. How are we to know whether or not the information is held or if processing it will take too much time?
I for one never ask for anything I don’t expect to exist, and since the beginning of my GIPA journey I’ve always kept my access applications limited to single topics; this also benefits the agency as there’s less likelihood of confusion. Of course that is entirely dependent on the reading comprehension skills of the officer processing the request….
And despite keeping my access applications succinct on reliance of agency information at first instance, somehow I’ve still managed to get a few unmeritorious applications, and so here I am today, facing this Big Top Circus, without any evidence from the agencies................
Today it was my turn again. And Phil was here to support me. This wasn’t my first Section 110 rodeo, but it was the first time I’d see this show of power against unrepresented Respondents, 2 of which had been dragged into this pretentious legal charade in a desperate collective attempt to set precedent caselaw to allow NSW government agencies to scoop up a group of people with the one Application of this kind.
They were all excited, the Applicants: Justin Cahill the Legal Rep, Jonathan Franklin witness for DCJ, Tony Wickham witness for PSC, and Maria Timothy for GMC.
As usual Wickham was supported by his back-up Council solicitor Lisa Marshall; he never makes a move without holding her hand ever-so-tightly.
Cahill was supported by two junior solicitors.
And entering the hearing room carrying all the boxes and boxes of files was DCJ’s Michael McIntosh, Principal Solicitor. Guess he was cheaper than a courier.
I sat at the far right of the bar table with Phil to my immediate left.
Cahill sat in the middle with his two junior solicitors on his left.
Cahill was not happy. He did not want Phil at the bar table. He did not want me to have support in contrast to his entourage.
I watched the parade of boxes, several copies of each; the left side of the hearing room was flanked by them. Probably designed to intimidate me. It failed.
I’d received the same Applicants’ boxes at my home, I viewed that as stalking behaviours as the documents were delivered digitally as well, so no need for any person to show up at my private residence. The courier demanded to see ID, it just gets worse. If I’d been seen anywhere near the vicinity of these public servants homes’ I’d have been arrested.
I’d opened one of them at the time of receipt, glanced over, picked out the Affidavits and Submissions and didn’t move another page. They could rot right where they were for all I cared. What a disgraceful display of access to resources. What a disgraceful display of waste.
Last night I opened up one box for a second time. Seven big shiny white folders with the Submissions thrown on top. I tried to fit them into a large suitcase to drag them to Sydney. They wouldn’t fit.
Then I thought “stuff this, they’re bound to bring all this crap with them, I’ll leave them to it.” So I attended the hearing with a small wheeled briefcase with just my own submissions, the three Affidavits for cross examination, and of course my questions. If I needed to refer to anything specific I could easily get Cahill to hand up a copy.
The Member entered the room and we were off and running. The parties introduced themselves and I introduced Phil “Senior Member this is Mr Walker, the Tribunal knows him. Mr Walker is my support person.”
I thought Cahill was never going to shut up. What an arrogant, angry little man he is! Seemed as though he didn’t want to be there, he’d been given this dirty job and it was up to him to get the prize, the Golden GIPA Chalice. He probably thought this case was beneath him, after all he’s a doctor…………….
Cahill must have stated “it’s quite complex” a dozen, two dozen, three dozen times.
It wasn’t. This was a grab to silence the public and cause as much public damage to my husband, his company, and me as possible. But mostly me.
It was clear the case was totally reliant on good old Tony Wickham. And why not? He’d had nothing but failures in his endeavours to get a Section 110 Order against me since 2017; invoices and remittance advice notices showed he and Marshall had spent $210,000.00 so far.
With the revelation from DCJ it had clocked up (852) eight hundred and fifty-two hours just getting to the filing of submissions and evidence in December 2024, the costs were over half a million already. And there was still the hearing, travel, lunches, accommodation for the two days, probably a nice bottle of Grange thrown in; why not?! Wickham would be signing off on the expense approvals at his end so no issues there.
The Applicants were claiming the Orders sought were necessary, bleating about my media releases and published articles which needed to be stopped.
But that’s not what a Section 110 Order is for.
They were also claiming they had passed through the preliminary gate of the number of unmeritorious access applications I’d lodged.
But there was no proof they were so.
Boxes and boxes of information, pages and pages of irrelevant material; ASIC searches, Lobbyist Registrations, media articles, access applications, you name it.
But not a single page of evidence to support the claimed unmeritorious access applications were such.
The presiding member repeatedly stated “So much material!” She was right. The intention to overwhelm her was successful.
These colluding public servants had included confidential components to their Affidavits.
Apparently it concerned their fears, concern for personal safety, blah, blah, blah; seeing their names up in lights on my website was supposed to be traumatising.
Basically, we will do whatever we want, you will be powerless to do anything, and if you tell anyone about it you will be traumatising us.
Hmmmm, must be that equity I’ve heard so much about. More realistically it’s about who holds the power, and if you make an issue of our abuse of it, we will cry like the sooks we are.
I repeatedly impressed upon the Member she had no jurisdiction to issue the Order sought, that is Order No. 1.
I repeatedly impressed upon the Member (2) two of the Applicants were disqualified as they did not have the preliminary number of unmeritorious applications to support a Section 110 Application.
I repeatedly impressed upon the Member (2) two of the Respondents were disqualified as neither had any unmeritorious applications at all.
I correctly stated DCJ could make its own Section 110 Application, but that meant separate fresh proceedings.
Not to worry, perhaps these were trivial issues of legal principle.
I sincerely believed this member, with all her GIPA experience including Appeals, had the full grasp of the legislation the good old GIPA Act 2009, that piece of the public’s beneficial legislation the Parliament freely gifted the public. There was no benefit to the government, but they wielded it as though the opposite were true.
The member asked me to get a letter of authority from Paul to represent him. I had been representing Paul since the first matters in 2016. I think he only sat for himself once during all that time.
So we had a lunch break and Team 110 got a confidential session.
I left my bag in the room, my pen engraved with “Justice” still sitting at my place at the bar table; these witnesses wanted their opportunity to cry to the Tribunal and share all their personal feelings, it would be a good show, done in secret, left untested.
But that’s not what a Section 110 is about.
The member was surprised with the request for a confidential component, something generally reserved for the consideration of redacted information, but she allowed it anyway.
And a Section 110 matter is not about any of that.
Anyway, the NCAT Act 2013 Section 49 says “public” to leave the hearing room not “party”. Another error in law to add to the ever-growing list. But NCAT’s been getting away with it for so long why stop now?
I’d called Paul and asked for the letter of authority, he had it ready. It was naturally on DraftCom Pty Ltd letterhead.
Phil and I returned to the hearing room.
I offered up the letter to the member who stated “Oh look it’s obviously her!” That’s right. Team 110 was claiming DraftCom Pty Ltd and Paul were actually responsible for my access applications, despite my documentation since October 2021 being on NSW Freedom of Information letterhead. Cahill was claiming Paul was QUOTE “the mind and will of DraftCom Pty Ltd” UNQUOTE, and as such had to be held to account for anything I did under a Trading As business name.
It was a real stretch for the Applicants and did nothing to hide their collective desperation to get this prize.
And let’s not forget, the whole of the state’s population of right to information & privacy officers were watching this case. The (400) four-hundred strong membership of NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, NIPPN. The use of the term practitioner gives the false impression they are carers of some kind, they are not. If this case got over the line it would open up untold possibilities of control and retaliation; community groups being scooped up in the one net, a Minister’s office and staff; I could see them lined up salivating.
Yes, DCJ and PSC had been members of NIPPN for a long time. No doubt GMC would be joining the flock now, welcomed by new comrades in arms.
My pen was nowhere to be seen. Did one of them steal it?! Did they toss it?! How dare they touch or move my property! But this wasn’t the time to make an issue of that.
Cross examination seemed pretty pointless.
Most notably, I wasn’t permitted to ask about these feelings of insecurity, fear, being harassed.
I wanted to know more. But I wasn’t permitted to test the claims.
DCJ’s Jonathan Franklin was first up. Didn’t really have much to say for himself, but it was clear from Cahill’s questioning everything rested on this claim of fear, concern for personal safety. At the end of the cross examination I asked him directly “And how are you feeling now?”
“Objection!” Couldn’t go there. How predictable.
I also asked Franklin very specifically words to the effect “from every staff member you know who’s contact details have been published on my website, how many are you aware of who have been contacted the direct result of that.”
“None,” Franklin stated.
None. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Diddly-squat.
So where is all this harassment happening? Clearly there was none.
Phil was making lots of notes, watching and listening to the witness’ evidence. Now and then he smiled.
Wickham was next.
Tony Wickham’s hands were shaking the whole time he sat in the chair. What a weak individual who couldn’t stand on his own merit, had to be backed by public resources or he was nothing. He dragged his five folders with him. At least he had his little moment.
But let’s not trivialise his inclusion here; Cahill made him the star, everything relied upon Wickham and all his access applications from me since 2011. Yes 2011. He even included the Informal Applications which don’t count for anything at all. But again, no evidence to support the claimed unmeritorious applications; the trigger for the Section 110 Application. Nothing. Everything else, but no evidence about that. How embarrassing.
But this is NCAT.
Agencies can basically claim anything and NCAT just takes it as gospel.
But members of the public get the totally opposite end of the judicial stick.
I was thankful when the day was over, but knew there was more to come the next day.
I’d have to listen to Cahill drone on and on about “this is very complex”, with him almost reading verbatim his submissions and parts of the Affidavits, the evidence of this one, the evidence of that one.
At one time the member was actually shrieking at him “Mr Cahill!!!” She should have held him in contempt. I’m certain if I’d behaved in that manner she wouldn’t have hesitated to discipline me, no doubt to a resounding applause.
Phil joined Paul and I at a nearby pub for a meal and a drink and we talked about many things apart from the day’s events. He’d be back tomorrow; I was so thankful for his support. “See you tomorrow Phil and thank you so much, we really appreciate it.”
I told Paul about the boxes and boxes of files and Cahill's performance. “It was quite a show. Cahill was very obvious he didn’t want Phil at the bar table. Too bad. Higgins was totally overwhelmed from the start. Cahill kept going and wouldn’t shut up. That guy's a bully. Higgins started saying “Mr Cahill” in efforts to stop him, but he ignored her. She must have said “Mr Cahill!” a half dozen times; finally she was shrieking with her teeth clenched “MR CAHILL!” She had no control over him at all and he had no respect for her whatsoever. And they got their confidential session. I made written submissions opposing any potential for that. I’m guessing she didn’t read anything. It’s just so poor. If this gets across the line we’re appealing, but you already knew that.”
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.