NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal Continues to Withhold Access to Tribunal Services from The Public
In Contradiction to Open Justice Principles, 21.08.2024
".........Publicity is the very soul of justice......... It keeps the judge, while trying (a case), under trial," Jeremy Bentham, 1790.
Clearly the concept and benefits of an open justice system are not new, neither are they revolutionary or controversial.
And yet we see the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT, does not embrace the (250) two hundred and fifty year old philosophy that open justice is seen as good justice, as justice seen to be done.
NCAT is now documented to act in contravention of that philosophy, vetting and subjecting those seeking access remotely through modern digital technologies, to formal applications.
It seems the public is expected to obtain the NCAT's approval to its highly prized Audio Visual Link systems.
In fact, this issue of vetting access to publicly open hearings has been highlighted on this Site previously, but clearly remains a valid concern to the NSW general public who expects to have ready access to the court’s processes no matter where they reside.
On this occasion, Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information had contacted the NCAT asking for provision of an Audio Visual Link to sit in the gallery remotely and observe the proceedings.
The NCAT is fully informed Ms Webb is located some (150) one hundred and fifty kilometres north of Sydney CBD where NCAT holds its hearings.
Having access to the request for an AVL link via email, where the Registry is able to ascertain who is asking, NCAT is able to vet those asking for the AVL.
Today, it again refused her access to a non-confidential hearing concerning Access to Information; an ongoing case between Justice NSW and businessman Mr Peter Zonnevylle. Mr Zonnevylle’s Access Application is currently (4) four years old and continues to be held up in NCAT proceedings without a resolution in sight. As such it is a case of significant public interest in the arena of access to NSW government information and the associated administrative review processes.
However the NCAT Registry responded to Ms Webb’s valid request for AVL by flatly refusing and stating she was welcome to attend in person, using the excuse she was not a party to the proceedings.
This decision is no doubt the continuation of actions on the part of a Justice NSW in-house solicitor Jonathan Franklin who earlier campaigned ferociously against Ms Webb’s accessing an AVL link, succeeding in having it refused to her.
Those submissions by Mr Franklin disclosed Justice NSW had succeeded because it had stooped to trolling the internet for information about Ms Webb he asserted painted a picture of her undermining the Tribunal’s processes. In particular Mr Franklin suggested Ms Webb's endeavours to help the public access NSW government information was unacceptable and should be frowned upon by the Tribunal, including Ms Webb’s design and promotion of an Awareness Ribbon which represented the hundreds of Victims of NCAT.
In particular, Mr Franklin had succeeded in creating a moral panic about Ms Webb’s potential to circulate information and communicate covertly on a non-public forum such as ‘Sub-Reddits’, and that she along with other unknown individuals who may have remote access to the hearing would illegally record and share the proceedings.
Jonathan Franklin was crystal-balling as there was no evidence of any such action on the part of Ms Webb.
The NCAT made a formal decision about these issues and Mr Franklin’s submissions, formalising its views about Ms Webb’s so-called conduct and the false allegations she would act illegally or unethically during a hearing should the AVL facility be made available to her.
The Tribunal does not ordinarily do so and it is clear both Justice and the Tribunal were intent on sending Ms Webb and other public advocates a very strong message, one which was designed to denegrate and damage her at least on this occasion.
“I’ve seen and gathered numerous evidence of NSW agency personnel acting to pervert the course of justice, fabric evidence against innocent access applicants, unlawfully claim legal costs, undermine the access to information and privacy legislation, breach the public’s privacy, the list just goes on and on.
But yet here we see when one member of the public extends a helping hand to another, this is somehow something to be frowned on and punished?! The fact my Awareness Ribbon is somehow such an affront, to ordinarily considered logical professional intelligent individuals, I would strongly suggest no government employee venture out on Anzac Day for fear they might be approached by someone wearing a memorial ribbon or badge!
I find it an affront that Justice NSW and the Tribunal should disclose their collective need to control me by such great lengths, but what it actually showed was that individuals who speak out against this arm of the judiciary should expect to be targeted for their courage to do so. Likewise, should any member of the public offer assistance in a forum concerning the accessing of government information, they will find themselves being accused of behaviours they have not been involved in, but which the judiciary believes and accepts on face value from over-zealous departmental solicitors driven by agenda; that agenda being to lock them out and deny their access to open justice. Indeed, any person can log into proceedings such as the coroner's or supreme court, as in the case of Lehrmann, and observe the proceedings unshackled and anonymous. Not so in the lowest level of the NSW judiciary NCAT.
Yes, it is true I do have a number of associates I support, individuals who also have their own websites and publish concerns about their own experiences with our government and the judiciary. Regrettably that list is growing through no fault of the public. However, as I state on my website, we all have differing views and I respect those views as they do mine.
Attending the hearing of an unrepresented member of the public is the very least each of us is able to do, given NCAT is against Applicants utilising the services of an Agent or McKenzie Friend, and I am not a solicitor. Mr Zonnevylle had the fundamental right to moral support and he was denied that. It makes applicants such as him easier targets for agency and judicial misconduct if there are no witnesses.
In my view, given the control NCAT exerts over accessing public hearings and hearing recordings, witnessing first-hand what happens in this lowest level of the NSW judiciary is becoming more and more difficult and unlikely for those who are outside the metropolitan area. Any reasonable person would agree this means a lack of oversight no how matter which way it's viewed.
We need more witnesses to agency misconduct not less!" stated Ms Webb. "As the previous NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman stated in September 2021, 'The public can use information to drive improvement.' Such a great statement but actually seeing that in action is a whole different story," commented Ms Webb.
Contact: Jonathan Franklin Jonathan.franklin@justice.nsw.gov.au Michael McIntosh michael.mcintosh@justice.nsw.gov.au Jodie Cobbin Jodie.cobbin@justice.nsw.gov.au
In fact, this issue of vetting access to publicly open hearings has been highlighted on this Site previously, but clearly remains a valid concern to the NSW general public who expects to have ready access to the court’s processes no matter where they reside.
On this occasion, Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information had contacted the NCAT asking for provision of an Audio Visual Link to sit in the gallery remotely and observe the proceedings.
The NCAT is fully informed Ms Webb is located some (150) one hundred and fifty kilometres north of Sydney CBD where NCAT holds its hearings.
Having access to the request for an AVL link via email, where the Registry is able to ascertain who is asking, NCAT is able to vet those asking for the AVL.
Today, it again refused her access to a non-confidential hearing concerning Access to Information; an ongoing case between Justice NSW and businessman Mr Peter Zonnevylle. Mr Zonnevylle’s Access Application is currently (4) four years old and continues to be held up in NCAT proceedings without a resolution in sight. As such it is a case of significant public interest in the arena of access to NSW government information and the associated administrative review processes.
However the NCAT Registry responded to Ms Webb’s valid request for AVL by flatly refusing and stating she was welcome to attend in person, using the excuse she was not a party to the proceedings.
This decision is no doubt the continuation of actions on the part of a Justice NSW in-house solicitor Jonathan Franklin who earlier campaigned ferociously against Ms Webb’s accessing an AVL link, succeeding in having it refused to her.
Those submissions by Mr Franklin disclosed Justice NSW had succeeded because it had stooped to trolling the internet for information about Ms Webb he asserted painted a picture of her undermining the Tribunal’s processes. In particular Mr Franklin suggested Ms Webb's endeavours to help the public access NSW government information was unacceptable and should be frowned upon by the Tribunal, including Ms Webb’s design and promotion of an Awareness Ribbon which represented the hundreds of Victims of NCAT.
In particular, Mr Franklin had succeeded in creating a moral panic about Ms Webb’s potential to circulate information and communicate covertly on a non-public forum such as ‘Sub-Reddits’, and that she along with other unknown individuals who may have remote access to the hearing would illegally record and share the proceedings.
Jonathan Franklin was crystal-balling as there was no evidence of any such action on the part of Ms Webb.
The NCAT made a formal decision about these issues and Mr Franklin’s submissions, formalising its views about Ms Webb’s so-called conduct and the false allegations she would act illegally or unethically during a hearing should the AVL facility be made available to her.
The Tribunal does not ordinarily do so and it is clear both Justice and the Tribunal were intent on sending Ms Webb and other public advocates a very strong message, one which was designed to denegrate and damage her at least on this occasion.
“I’ve seen and gathered numerous evidence of NSW agency personnel acting to pervert the course of justice, fabric evidence against innocent access applicants, unlawfully claim legal costs, undermine the access to information and privacy legislation, breach the public’s privacy, the list just goes on and on.
But yet here we see when one member of the public extends a helping hand to another, this is somehow something to be frowned on and punished?! The fact my Awareness Ribbon is somehow such an affront, to ordinarily considered logical professional intelligent individuals, I would strongly suggest no government employee venture out on Anzac Day for fear they might be approached by someone wearing a memorial ribbon or badge!
I find it an affront that Justice NSW and the Tribunal should disclose their collective need to control me by such great lengths, but what it actually showed was that individuals who speak out against this arm of the judiciary should expect to be targeted for their courage to do so. Likewise, should any member of the public offer assistance in a forum concerning the accessing of government information, they will find themselves being accused of behaviours they have not been involved in, but which the judiciary believes and accepts on face value from over-zealous departmental solicitors driven by agenda; that agenda being to lock them out and deny their access to open justice. Indeed, any person can log into proceedings such as the coroner's or supreme court, as in the case of Lehrmann, and observe the proceedings unshackled and anonymous. Not so in the lowest level of the NSW judiciary NCAT.
Yes, it is true I do have a number of associates I support, individuals who also have their own websites and publish concerns about their own experiences with our government and the judiciary. Regrettably that list is growing through no fault of the public. However, as I state on my website, we all have differing views and I respect those views as they do mine.
Attending the hearing of an unrepresented member of the public is the very least each of us is able to do, given NCAT is against Applicants utilising the services of an Agent or McKenzie Friend, and I am not a solicitor. Mr Zonnevylle had the fundamental right to moral support and he was denied that. It makes applicants such as him easier targets for agency and judicial misconduct if there are no witnesses.
In my view, given the control NCAT exerts over accessing public hearings and hearing recordings, witnessing first-hand what happens in this lowest level of the NSW judiciary is becoming more and more difficult and unlikely for those who are outside the metropolitan area. Any reasonable person would agree this means a lack of oversight no how matter which way it's viewed.
We need more witnesses to agency misconduct not less!" stated Ms Webb. "As the previous NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman stated in September 2021, 'The public can use information to drive improvement.' Such a great statement but actually seeing that in action is a whole different story," commented Ms Webb.
Contact: Jonathan Franklin Jonathan.franklin@justice.nsw.gov.au Michael McIntosh michael.mcintosh@justice.nsw.gov.au Jodie Cobbin Jodie.cobbin@justice.nsw.gov.au