It started in 2011 with an unsubstantiated claim of a risk of harm from a person suffering ongoing mental health issues.  The target of the allegations had done nothing wrong however.

It would come to the victim of those false allegations repeatedly pleading to a Council in-house solicitor "What do you want from me Lisa Marshall?"

In between it escalated into an offence in March / April 2012.  The two-party conspiracy remains in place to this date and will not terminate until either the agreement expires or a law enforcement agency duly intervenes.

August 2011 was the first time Paul McEwan heard the term “there’s a cause harm”; he had no idea what it meant.  Mr McEwan had asked for Objecting Submissions to his own Development Application, for a project Council initially repeatedly stated it had no interest in.  

But on receiving a complaint from a neighbour who was known to suffer dementia, Council chose to get involved.

Objecting Submissions are open access information mandated for release free of charge.  This is to ensure the avoidance of corruption, with open transparent Council processes giving the general public confidence Council development decisions are above-board, where powerful wealthy developers are supposedly treated like ordinary citizens.
There was no basis for the “cause harm”, there never was.

But the Council Executive Officer Tony Leslie Wickham apparently treated the claim seriously despite knowing the accuser suffered with ongoing mental health issues.
So in March 2012 when a secondary neighbour to Mr McEwan’s property contacted Tony Wickham directly, asking how he could lodge an objecting submission in secrecy, Tony Leslie Wickham suggested, initiated and implemented an unlawful agreement colluding  to conceal and protect open access information mandated for release free of charge under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, or GIPA.
Tony Wickham wrote to his partner making clear reference to a number of clauses of the GIPA Act including Section 14 Table 3(f), a very powerful clause:  There is a public interest against disclosure if releasing the information would expose a person to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation.  It was the perfect ruse!  With Tony Wickham the firewall for any enquiry.
It was never supposed to be this easy to secure a Council favour and completely compromise legislated processes.  But clearly it’s not what you know but who.
Documents released over time from Council itself point to Mr Wickham’s partner in crime being a Council Committee Member at the time, so they knew each other, they had a Council-based relationship.
By April 2012 the agreement was firmly in place, ready for any forthcoming Formal Access Application where the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, GIPA, Section 14 Table 3(f) would be applied to any request for the objecting submissions.
Tony Wickham even went so far as to give his personal reassurance that should the Information Commissioner come calling, Council would respond.  “No worries mate!  I’ve got your back!  And you won’t have to do a thing!  Council has this covered!”
It all seemed innocent enough in the beginning, nothing much to be concerned about, just the most basic matter of a Council Development Application for a Privacy Screen on a property bounded by (5) five properties.
Council had issued a Swimming Pool Compliance Brochure to the community and the owner of a Port Stephens Shire property Mr Paul McEwan realised his Council Approved swimming pool safety barrier was in fact not compliant, placing him at risk should a child be potentially injured.
Mr McEwan had taken Council’s brochure seriously and wanted to bring his property into full compliance.
But in the background there was this relationship which would reverberate through Port Stephens Council and into the public arena and eventually the judiciary.
This individual, Mr Wickham’s cohort, would resultantly see his information omitted from formal Council reports, Court documentation, and judicial review records; such was Tony Wickham’s commitment.
They were both in it up to their necks and there was no getting out now.
Over time Mr McEwan has repeatedly sought access to these outstanding documents, but at all times Council has refused.
It would cost Council Rate Payers thousands upon thousands of dollars as Council continually engaged external legal service providers to support the unfounded fabricated claim of Mr McEwan posed a serious risk of harm.
Tony Wickham’s partner in the deception has not spent a single cent.
He’s never appeared at any hearing or investigation.
He’s not made any statements.
Tony Wickham continues to ensure his anonymity at any cost.
So committed to ensuring the unlawful agreement was maintained, and that he personally maintained control, Tony Wickham would write a false and misleading letter to the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner stating apprehended violence orders had been issued against Mr McEwan and his wife, that police had been called to their neighbourhood due to disturbances involving them, that they had personally attacked staff, and they the open access information withheld from them had been so due their posing a serious risk to public safety.
He was able to do this because most documents and communications between NSW government agencies are classified as Exempt Information, that is they are precluded by law from release, effectively covering up unlawful criminal behaviour.
Fast forward to 2016 when Mr McEwan would seek a formal review of Council’s decision to refuse access to the documents, and Tony Wickham supported by in-house solicitor Lisa Helene Marshall, would continue to perpetrate the lies this time availing themselves of a confidential session with a Tribunal Member of NCAT, convincing the Member unchallenged of the claimed risk.
No person asked Mr McEwan or his wife any questions about the claimed risk.
The resulting caselaw from this judicial punitive circus was the formal tainting of Mr McEwan and his wife’s names, there for perpetuity for all to see.  Council would succeed in securing a Confidentiality Wish from NCAT, sealing the requested information and the false accusations away safely, so there never was any accountability.
It would take Mr McEwan (4) four years to clear his name from terms and legal references including “molestation of a person” and “the Crimes and Domestic Personal Violence Act”.
Mr McEwan would later seek to have those confidentiality wishes set aside and the information no longer protected, but those attempts failed.
This is where Port Stephens Council commenced seeking legal costs against Mr McEwan, for it was not sufficient that his good name be publicly trashed the result of the false claims of a risk of harm; Council wanted to punish him for daring to exercise his rights to seek a review of the original Tribunal orders.
Council was successful in its Costs Application with the Tribunal ordering a Costs Assessment.This resulted in the Registering of a Debt with the Local Court against Mr McEwan to which he initially paid the amount of $2,000.00, with regular monthly payments of $500.00, towards claimed costs in the vicinity of $15,000.00.
What Council did not disclose to Mr McEwan however, and the NCAT failed in its duty of care to address, is that the enabling legislation, the GIPA Act 2009, does not provide a mechanism to seek costs.
Instead however, not satisfied with the regular payments made by Mr McEwan, payments which were made in good faith but on a false legal premise he was obligated to do so, Council’s Lisa Helene Marshall wrote to Mr McEwan to apply even more pressure onto him.
Mr McEwan has asked Lisa Marshall’s letter, 15th November 2023, and his reply of 23rd November 2023, be published on this Site as a matter of public interest because it concerns current freedom of information processes and the way agencies respond to valid access applicants.
He also asked for a feedback form to be included to enable direct public commentary.This is just one chapter of McEwan v Port Stephens Council and the unquantifiable amounts of monies Council has willingly spent to cover up an unlawful agreement between an Executive Officer and an indicated Council Committee Member.
Lisa Marshall’s threatening letter is here.
Mr McEwan’s reply repeatedly asking “What Do You Want From Me Lisa Marshall?” is here.
No person from Port Stephens Council has ever replied to Mr McEwan.
Contact:
Lisa Marshalllisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au

Tony Wickhamtony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au

Members of the public are invited to comment on this article and the attachments.

Thank you!

Error