NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal Continuously Obstructs Public’s Rights toAccess Open Justice Principles, 20.12.2021
The NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT, has again today unnecessarily obstructed the public’s right to access open justice principles relating to the attendance of NCAT Hearings in the public gallery.
The principle of open justice can be clearly explained by the words of J McHugh (1986), where he stated “The fundamental rule of our common law legal system is that the administration of justice must take place in open courts. A court can only depart from that rule where its observance would frustrate the administration of justice or some other public interest for whose protection Parliament has modified the open justice rule. The principle of open justice also requires that nothing should be done to discourage the making of fair and accurate reports of what occurs in the courtroom.”
It is solid caselaw and is relied upon regularly in the court system, as well as the NCAT albeit the NCAT is categorised as a tribunal and not a court.
However, the public has particularly since the onset of the recent pandemic, found it more and more difficult to access the NCAT as an open court forum, whether that access be required for general public interest or media reporting.
The public has in fact reported numerous instances where they are subjected to scrutiny by NCAT Registry Staff, and where they are pressed to identify themselves, whereby they are subsequently told they have been refused access to NCAT Hearings.
NSW Freedom of Information advocate Telina Webb today also contacted the NCAT Registry to obtain the dial-in details for a particular case conference relating to an administrative review. Ms Webb was asked by the Registry to identify herself and to disclose whether or not she was a media representative, but only to be told thereafter that the Hearing was confidential and that as such the public were excluded.
Ms Webb has since confirmed the case conference of 3.00pm today for Zonnevylle v Dept of Education was not in fact confidential. Another member of the public has confirmed she too was denied the dial-in details for Mr Zonnevylle’s case on the false premise the case conference was confidential.
“We need more people in the public gallery to ensure policy, procedure, and the rights of particularly those self-represented parties are upheld. The public should be extremely concerned the NCAT and its staff are blatantly making misrepresentations to the public and shutting them out, unethically if not unlawfully,” stated Ms Webb.
“NCAT’s “public service” has declined markedly since the onset of the pandemic, where the pandemic itself has become the perfect excuse to procrastinate proceedings, frustrate self-represented parties, and to exclude interested members of the public from rightfully attending hearings. It is completely dictatorial and is in stark contrast to NCAT propaganda asserting NCAT is an informal forum when it is quite obviously not,” stated Ms Webb. “Today is not the first time I’ve been refused access to the digital public gallery, for cases that were simply administrative reviews.”
“This is not the only serious issue within NCAT, as it is also on the record disclosing its numerous problems providing accurate and / or complete Hearing Recordings, which causes significant difficulties for those seeking appeals on NCAT decisions, and now it is saying it will pick and choose which members of the public will enter the digital public gallery, if any at all,” stated Ms Webb.
With recordings often inaccurate or missing, and the public excluded from hearings, a self-represented party to NCAT proceedings is likely to find themselves unable to qualify earlier crucial Hearing dialogue, being left with nothing more than hearsay, particularly when NCAT Decisions rarely accurately reflect what occurs during proceedings.
As documented on the community service website www.nswfreedomofinformation.net, the public are beginning to openly voice their concerns about the level of service currently practiced by a number of NSW agencies including the NCAT. The message should be clear, the public feels agencies are failing and that there is much to be done to bring current protocols into greater alignment with the public’s expectations.
This recent confirmation NCAT is now continuously on the record scrutinising and disqualifying those who wish to take their legitimate seat in the digital public gallery of open justice should be of serious concern to the public and the NSW Attorney General Mr Speakman, as the NCAT acts to obstruct fundamental rights and pervert the principles of open justice, in contradiction to J Hugh’s (1986) broadly accepted position.
• Telina Webb can be contacted on 0493 211 635
The principle of open justice can be clearly explained by the words of J McHugh (1986), where he stated “The fundamental rule of our common law legal system is that the administration of justice must take place in open courts. A court can only depart from that rule where its observance would frustrate the administration of justice or some other public interest for whose protection Parliament has modified the open justice rule. The principle of open justice also requires that nothing should be done to discourage the making of fair and accurate reports of what occurs in the courtroom.”
It is solid caselaw and is relied upon regularly in the court system, as well as the NCAT albeit the NCAT is categorised as a tribunal and not a court.
However, the public has particularly since the onset of the recent pandemic, found it more and more difficult to access the NCAT as an open court forum, whether that access be required for general public interest or media reporting.
The public has in fact reported numerous instances where they are subjected to scrutiny by NCAT Registry Staff, and where they are pressed to identify themselves, whereby they are subsequently told they have been refused access to NCAT Hearings.
NSW Freedom of Information advocate Telina Webb today also contacted the NCAT Registry to obtain the dial-in details for a particular case conference relating to an administrative review. Ms Webb was asked by the Registry to identify herself and to disclose whether or not she was a media representative, but only to be told thereafter that the Hearing was confidential and that as such the public were excluded.
Ms Webb has since confirmed the case conference of 3.00pm today for Zonnevylle v Dept of Education was not in fact confidential. Another member of the public has confirmed she too was denied the dial-in details for Mr Zonnevylle’s case on the false premise the case conference was confidential.
“We need more people in the public gallery to ensure policy, procedure, and the rights of particularly those self-represented parties are upheld. The public should be extremely concerned the NCAT and its staff are blatantly making misrepresentations to the public and shutting them out, unethically if not unlawfully,” stated Ms Webb.
“NCAT’s “public service” has declined markedly since the onset of the pandemic, where the pandemic itself has become the perfect excuse to procrastinate proceedings, frustrate self-represented parties, and to exclude interested members of the public from rightfully attending hearings. It is completely dictatorial and is in stark contrast to NCAT propaganda asserting NCAT is an informal forum when it is quite obviously not,” stated Ms Webb. “Today is not the first time I’ve been refused access to the digital public gallery, for cases that were simply administrative reviews.”
“This is not the only serious issue within NCAT, as it is also on the record disclosing its numerous problems providing accurate and / or complete Hearing Recordings, which causes significant difficulties for those seeking appeals on NCAT decisions, and now it is saying it will pick and choose which members of the public will enter the digital public gallery, if any at all,” stated Ms Webb.
With recordings often inaccurate or missing, and the public excluded from hearings, a self-represented party to NCAT proceedings is likely to find themselves unable to qualify earlier crucial Hearing dialogue, being left with nothing more than hearsay, particularly when NCAT Decisions rarely accurately reflect what occurs during proceedings.
As documented on the community service website www.nswfreedomofinformation.net, the public are beginning to openly voice their concerns about the level of service currently practiced by a number of NSW agencies including the NCAT. The message should be clear, the public feels agencies are failing and that there is much to be done to bring current protocols into greater alignment with the public’s expectations.
This recent confirmation NCAT is now continuously on the record scrutinising and disqualifying those who wish to take their legitimate seat in the digital public gallery of open justice should be of serious concern to the public and the NSW Attorney General Mr Speakman, as the NCAT acts to obstruct fundamental rights and pervert the principles of open justice, in contradiction to J Hugh’s (1986) broadly accepted position.
• Telina Webb can be contacted on 0493 211 635