The investigation has been delegated to retired judge Francis Marks, formerly of the Industrial Relations Commission. It seems Marks has been deployed to undertake some kind of military-style action, to get to the heart of allegations and review the governance and culture of the TWU’s Melbourne branch, as an independent national ombudsman. Quite a coup for a pensioner!
.jpeg)
The Honourable Francis Marks
Image courtesy of LinkedIn
Marks is not only a former judge, he is also a former Principal Member of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT. Staff in that area of the judiciary affectionately referred to him as The Judge; perhaps with a little touch of satire behind a subtle smirk.
But it hasn’t always been smooth sailing and prestigious positions with this puisne (junior) judicial officer; so he’s not really a judge?!
Marks is on the record in February 2020 stating “we, humans, are all inherently biased” to a self-represented respondent in NCAT proceedings who was facing a potential restraint order to stop her exercising her legal rights (supposed…..) to access NSW government information.
The Application for Restraint Order under Section 110 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA) had been brought by Port Stephens Council against Telina Webb, since of NSW Freedom of Information. Webb had simply exercised her rights to gain access to NSW government information, and when those records exposed corruption of Council's Development Application processes and she spoke openly about that, Council decided to take action. She had to be stopped!
This was the second time Council had tried to secure such an order against Webb. Council’s earlier Application in 2017 had completely failed at first instance, with Council choosing to accept the decision and not lodge an appeal. So the decision stood firm.
In December 2019 at a Tribunal case conference involving Webb and Port Stephens Council, Marks stated “I think we should revisit the Section 110.” He suggested it, how efficient of him.
Not surprisingly Council agreed, with Marks instructing it “Now I want lots of documents!” Marks did not disclose he would be adjudicating over that secondary Section 110 Application, but his comment gave his game away.
In the lead up to the December case conference Marks asked Webb if her husband would be able to attend the Tribunal, so they travelled the 130klms at what they believed was the request of Marks. Webb introduced her husband to Marks saying “my husband is here, you mentioned you might have some questions for him?” Marks stated “No, I just wanted to see if he’d come.” So they had taken time off work at the whim of an arrogant Tribunal Member who wanted to exercise and display his power and position for no reason at all, driven 260klms, soaked up fuel and premium parking costs, for nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Diddly-squat. They were beginning to understand what was in store and who was running this Section 110 Show. So with the blessing of Francis Marks the Applicant Council did as instructed, pooled together every document it had in the Webb dossier at that time and dumped it all in front of Marks, including material from a matter which had already been judged and finalised and was no longer appealable. Council also included every complaint and Code of Conduct it had received from Webb; this had to look as bad as possible albeit the inclusion of irrelevant material. This was a golden opportunity. And it seems this ex-judge was so intent on justifying his forthcoming orders he pushed the legal principle of Res Judicata completely out of the Tribunal window in order to spring the Section 110 trap tightly around Webb. Of course, he hoped she would not be aware of the legal principle of Res Judicata at the time of defending her case.
Port Stephens Council was represented by Brenda Tronson of Level 22 Chambers; yes she is a barrister. Apparently she also lectures in law, specialising in ethics, professional conduct governance, and administrative law. Could this woman possibly look any worse, pursuing an unrepresented opponent by hiding a legal premise? Not a good look!
Tronson was supported by solicitors Carlo Zoppo and Matthew Harker of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers, with another solicitor as observer. We should all learn from the best whenever possible and a cluster of voyeurs might even be intimidating.
Zoppo and Harker were supported by Council’s Corporate Policeman / Governance Manager Tony Leslie Wickham and in-house solicitor compatriot Lisa Helene Marshall.
It really was quite a team against one person without any legal training. They would get her. Marks would help them get her. And she would not be aware of the legal principle barring the Council from re-litigating the earlier 2017 failed Application for Restraint Order.
Webb was completely unaware it was unethical to drag the earlier finalised matter into these proceedings for a collective judgement, or should we say punishment. But there can be no doubt every other person knew it, especially the loveable Judge and Tronson.
The hearing took place on 20th February 2020. Marks acted appallingly when he pressed Webb, in open session, about her relationship with her husband. When she disclosed she was a student he said “well why don’t you write a paper or something.”
In record time just (11) eleven days after the Section 110 hearing Marks issued his decision which was always going to be against Webb, restraining her / impinging on her legal rights to access NSW government information in perpetuity in contravention to the legislation, and with some other juicy parameters which were outside of NCAT jurisdiction. But what's a little speed bump like jurisdiction? If you don't like it take it to Appeal! They know the drill. There can be doubt the hearing was a formality with the decision already written and ready to go. NCAT usually takes over (12) twelve months to form its decisions. But not satisfied with that, he instructed Tony Wickham to provide his Affidavit in WORD format, and then he published every word of it in caselaw. No, he didn’t ask Webb for hers. He did not treat her equally, if there is such a thing against the legal entourage and the prejudicial punitive adjudicator she faced. Well done old matey!
In June 2020 Webb successfully overturned Marks’ disgraceful decision at appeal level.
She had done it by proving he had acted with bias; suggesting Council lodge the secondary 110 Application, instructing Council to provide lots of documents, and then presiding over that.
The Appeal Panel remitted the matter to a new hearing and in December 2020 Webb was again successful.
However, once again the earlier finalised proceedings in 2017 were brought forward to both the Appeal Panel hearing, and the remittal hearing despite such being prohibited.
Nobody said a word about Res Judicata.
“After I won my appeal in June 2020 I issued a media release, I felt I had the right to be proud of my efforts and what I’d achieved. That media release was taken up by several media outlets and published on the internet. But Port Stephens Council used public monies and had it removed. So I thought about what Marks had said ‘why don’t you write a paper or something,’ and I decided I would do much more than that. I would launch a website to help others on their own access to information journey and to shine a light on every level of corruption I encountered, which I did in October 2021 in the middle of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner’s Right to Know Week,” stated Webb.
This is a cautionary tale of what happens when a trusting public elevates spiteful, punitive, agenda-driven individuals to dizzying heights. And it shows that bias, prejudice, and ignoring legal principles is absolutely nothing to so-minded public servants and publicly funded defence teams with instructions to crush those who are no match for their knowledge and legal skills.
The legal principle of Res Judicata, a principle which bars a claim against re-litigating the same issues by the same parties which have already been judged and finalised, was formalised in the Westminster legal system in 1599.
It was earlier embraced and probably originated from those clever ancient Romans. All the actors in these particular proceedings, this secondary Application for a Restraint Order under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 110, the Appeal and the subsequent remittal, were fully informed about Res Judicata.
But they collectively cast it aside in the hope of winning at any cost.
And the presiding judge is now acting to investigate dysfunction in the TWU?
Shame Francis Marks! Shame! Shame on you!
And the lead Counsel is teaching law, ethics and governance in a university?
Shame Brenda Tronson! Shame! Shame on you!
And the Corporate Policeman at the centre of it all still sits in his position of influence at Port Stephens Council as does his side-kick in-house solicitor as she does every other day.
Zoppo is a freelance legal consultant these days.
Harker is following in Tronson’s footsteps as he seeks to become a barrister.
They all profited at the expense of the public purse, and they did it with a posse mentality against a non-legal, unrepresented opponent who eventually kicked their collective legal behinds, despite them trampling on a (400) four hundred year old legal principle.
“Undertaking criminology provided me a much greater understanding of the psychopathy driving the actions and decisions of individuals in positions of power. The same patterns of behaviours keep coming through, the same personality traits, the same disdain for those who have not had the same access to their privilege. Narcissism generally tops the list, supported by a strong superiority complex. Some show undeniable traits of Machiavellianism. They love the power, they love using it, and they undoubtedly love looking back over their shoulder and seeing the trail of collateral damage they leave behind.”
“They want those outside the circle of legal trust to know they see them as lowly, unworthy nuisances who need to be taught a lesson in status. Some of them are so arrogant, as in this case where the legal cream acted unconscionably, knowing full well they themselves were denying procedural fairness and perverting the course of justice. Tronson turned her back on procedural fairness and ignored legal principles. Marks was enamoured by her as she wooed him with her legal speak “if it pleases the Tribunal”, “I am indebted to my practice”, etc. They are phonies. And no, I am not the only out-gunned member of the public stitched up by Marks. And no, I will never stop blowing my whistle on these stains on the legal society,” stated Webb.
“The fact remains, little old me, I beat Francis Marks by proving he acted with bias. Since then I’ve had many discussions with many NCAT victims who’ve found themselves before Marks, and they describe him as senile and delusional, wondering how he managed to continue hearing cases despite being way past retirement age. One person labelled him ‘the smiling assassin’ because of the way he dealt out harsh punishments while smiling innocently at them, but that’s the narcissist coming through,” stated Webb. “It will be interesting to see what the report on the TWU contains from this puisne (junior) judge; a Clayton’s judge actually; the judge you have when you’re not really having a judge.” Contact: Brenda Tronson, brenda.tronson@unsw.edu.au
But it hasn’t always been smooth sailing and prestigious positions with this puisne (junior) judicial officer; so he’s not really a judge?!
Marks is on the record in February 2020 stating “we, humans, are all inherently biased” to a self-represented respondent in NCAT proceedings who was facing a potential restraint order to stop her exercising her legal rights (supposed…..) to access NSW government information.
The Application for Restraint Order under Section 110 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA) had been brought by Port Stephens Council against Telina Webb, since of NSW Freedom of Information. Webb had simply exercised her rights to gain access to NSW government information, and when those records exposed corruption of Council's Development Application processes and she spoke openly about that, Council decided to take action. She had to be stopped!
This was the second time Council had tried to secure such an order against Webb. Council’s earlier Application in 2017 had completely failed at first instance, with Council choosing to accept the decision and not lodge an appeal. So the decision stood firm.
In December 2019 at a Tribunal case conference involving Webb and Port Stephens Council, Marks stated “I think we should revisit the Section 110.” He suggested it, how efficient of him.
Not surprisingly Council agreed, with Marks instructing it “Now I want lots of documents!” Marks did not disclose he would be adjudicating over that secondary Section 110 Application, but his comment gave his game away.
In the lead up to the December case conference Marks asked Webb if her husband would be able to attend the Tribunal, so they travelled the 130klms at what they believed was the request of Marks. Webb introduced her husband to Marks saying “my husband is here, you mentioned you might have some questions for him?” Marks stated “No, I just wanted to see if he’d come.” So they had taken time off work at the whim of an arrogant Tribunal Member who wanted to exercise and display his power and position for no reason at all, driven 260klms, soaked up fuel and premium parking costs, for nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Diddly-squat. They were beginning to understand what was in store and who was running this Section 110 Show. So with the blessing of Francis Marks the Applicant Council did as instructed, pooled together every document it had in the Webb dossier at that time and dumped it all in front of Marks, including material from a matter which had already been judged and finalised and was no longer appealable. Council also included every complaint and Code of Conduct it had received from Webb; this had to look as bad as possible albeit the inclusion of irrelevant material. This was a golden opportunity. And it seems this ex-judge was so intent on justifying his forthcoming orders he pushed the legal principle of Res Judicata completely out of the Tribunal window in order to spring the Section 110 trap tightly around Webb. Of course, he hoped she would not be aware of the legal principle of Res Judicata at the time of defending her case.
Port Stephens Council was represented by Brenda Tronson of Level 22 Chambers; yes she is a barrister. Apparently she also lectures in law, specialising in ethics, professional conduct governance, and administrative law. Could this woman possibly look any worse, pursuing an unrepresented opponent by hiding a legal premise? Not a good look!
Tronson was supported by solicitors Carlo Zoppo and Matthew Harker of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers, with another solicitor as observer. We should all learn from the best whenever possible and a cluster of voyeurs might even be intimidating.
Zoppo and Harker were supported by Council’s Corporate Policeman / Governance Manager Tony Leslie Wickham and in-house solicitor compatriot Lisa Helene Marshall.
It really was quite a team against one person without any legal training. They would get her. Marks would help them get her. And she would not be aware of the legal principle barring the Council from re-litigating the earlier 2017 failed Application for Restraint Order.
Webb was completely unaware it was unethical to drag the earlier finalised matter into these proceedings for a collective judgement, or should we say punishment. But there can be no doubt every other person knew it, especially the loveable Judge and Tronson.
The hearing took place on 20th February 2020. Marks acted appallingly when he pressed Webb, in open session, about her relationship with her husband. When she disclosed she was a student he said “well why don’t you write a paper or something.”
In record time just (11) eleven days after the Section 110 hearing Marks issued his decision which was always going to be against Webb, restraining her / impinging on her legal rights to access NSW government information in perpetuity in contravention to the legislation, and with some other juicy parameters which were outside of NCAT jurisdiction. But what's a little speed bump like jurisdiction? If you don't like it take it to Appeal! They know the drill. There can be doubt the hearing was a formality with the decision already written and ready to go. NCAT usually takes over (12) twelve months to form its decisions. But not satisfied with that, he instructed Tony Wickham to provide his Affidavit in WORD format, and then he published every word of it in caselaw. No, he didn’t ask Webb for hers. He did not treat her equally, if there is such a thing against the legal entourage and the prejudicial punitive adjudicator she faced. Well done old matey!
In June 2020 Webb successfully overturned Marks’ disgraceful decision at appeal level.
She had done it by proving he had acted with bias; suggesting Council lodge the secondary 110 Application, instructing Council to provide lots of documents, and then presiding over that.
The Appeal Panel remitted the matter to a new hearing and in December 2020 Webb was again successful.
However, once again the earlier finalised proceedings in 2017 were brought forward to both the Appeal Panel hearing, and the remittal hearing despite such being prohibited.
Nobody said a word about Res Judicata.
“After I won my appeal in June 2020 I issued a media release, I felt I had the right to be proud of my efforts and what I’d achieved. That media release was taken up by several media outlets and published on the internet. But Port Stephens Council used public monies and had it removed. So I thought about what Marks had said ‘why don’t you write a paper or something,’ and I decided I would do much more than that. I would launch a website to help others on their own access to information journey and to shine a light on every level of corruption I encountered, which I did in October 2021 in the middle of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner’s Right to Know Week,” stated Webb.
This is a cautionary tale of what happens when a trusting public elevates spiteful, punitive, agenda-driven individuals to dizzying heights. And it shows that bias, prejudice, and ignoring legal principles is absolutely nothing to so-minded public servants and publicly funded defence teams with instructions to crush those who are no match for their knowledge and legal skills.
The legal principle of Res Judicata, a principle which bars a claim against re-litigating the same issues by the same parties which have already been judged and finalised, was formalised in the Westminster legal system in 1599.
It was earlier embraced and probably originated from those clever ancient Romans. All the actors in these particular proceedings, this secondary Application for a Restraint Order under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 110, the Appeal and the subsequent remittal, were fully informed about Res Judicata.
But they collectively cast it aside in the hope of winning at any cost.
And the presiding judge is now acting to investigate dysfunction in the TWU?
Shame Francis Marks! Shame! Shame on you!
And the lead Counsel is teaching law, ethics and governance in a university?
Shame Brenda Tronson! Shame! Shame on you!
And the Corporate Policeman at the centre of it all still sits in his position of influence at Port Stephens Council as does his side-kick in-house solicitor as she does every other day.
Zoppo is a freelance legal consultant these days.
Harker is following in Tronson’s footsteps as he seeks to become a barrister.
They all profited at the expense of the public purse, and they did it with a posse mentality against a non-legal, unrepresented opponent who eventually kicked their collective legal behinds, despite them trampling on a (400) four hundred year old legal principle.
“Undertaking criminology provided me a much greater understanding of the psychopathy driving the actions and decisions of individuals in positions of power. The same patterns of behaviours keep coming through, the same personality traits, the same disdain for those who have not had the same access to their privilege. Narcissism generally tops the list, supported by a strong superiority complex. Some show undeniable traits of Machiavellianism. They love the power, they love using it, and they undoubtedly love looking back over their shoulder and seeing the trail of collateral damage they leave behind.”
“They want those outside the circle of legal trust to know they see them as lowly, unworthy nuisances who need to be taught a lesson in status. Some of them are so arrogant, as in this case where the legal cream acted unconscionably, knowing full well they themselves were denying procedural fairness and perverting the course of justice. Tronson turned her back on procedural fairness and ignored legal principles. Marks was enamoured by her as she wooed him with her legal speak “if it pleases the Tribunal”, “I am indebted to my practice”, etc. They are phonies. And no, I am not the only out-gunned member of the public stitched up by Marks. And no, I will never stop blowing my whistle on these stains on the legal society,” stated Webb.
“The fact remains, little old me, I beat Francis Marks by proving he acted with bias. Since then I’ve had many discussions with many NCAT victims who’ve found themselves before Marks, and they describe him as senile and delusional, wondering how he managed to continue hearing cases despite being way past retirement age. One person labelled him ‘the smiling assassin’ because of the way he dealt out harsh punishments while smiling innocently at them, but that’s the narcissist coming through,” stated Webb. “It will be interesting to see what the report on the TWU contains from this puisne (junior) judge; a Clayton’s judge actually; the judge you have when you’re not really having a judge.” Contact: Brenda Tronson, brenda.tronson@unsw.edu.au
Contact us using this form to start your conversation about your experiences with questionable legal practitioners or decision makers.