NCAT Principle Member Chooses to Omit Submissions of Unrepresented Party from Published Case Law,
Stating Decision is a True and Accurate Account of Hearing, 03.08.2023
A decision handed down by a Principal Member of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT, today sees an inaccurate representation of what occurred at a Hearing of 28th July 2023.
The decision concerned an appeal of an earlier NCAT decision to refuse an Audio Visual Link (AVL) to the applicant in the proceedings for the forthcoming substantial hearing.
The applicant was Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information with the NSW Dept of Communities & Justice (Justice NSW) as respondent to an administrative review under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, GIPA.
As is usual before the NCAT, Ms Webb is self-represented, is not legally qualified or trained, and is a non-legal professional.
She had made an application to appear at the substantial hearing via AVL link due to the fact her residential location sees her incurring a 300-kilometre round trip to NCAT’s Goulburn Street premises, in addition to premium toll and parking fees.
NCAT had asked the parties for submissions concerning the AVL application, which saw Justice NSW’s in-house solicitor Jonathan Ian Franklin providing evidence he or the department had acted in a troll-like manner, searching Ms Webb’s Twitter and other Social Media accounts to find information to be used against her for the specific purpose and intention of denying her access to the AVL facility.
That trolled information included screenshots of her FREE offers to assist members of the public with their freedom of information and formal administrative review matters, as well as information from secondary websites which she openly disclosed she was affiliated with.
Justice NSW also framed Ms Webb’s Awareness Ribbon promoted on her Site as something the NCAT should frown on, in particular concerning the fact she offered those ribbons free of charge in exchange for sharing the public’s NCAT hearing information, information which is not confidential.
Justice NSW was successful in having Ms Webb’s AVL Application refused, with the deciding member Therese Simon wholeheartedly accepting Justice’ assertions Ms Webb was likely to unlawfully record the proceedings, covertly share information, or take counsel during proceedings if allowed the AVL mechanism.
In contradiction however Member Simon also stated there was no evidence of such behaviour occurring.
Member Simon earlier denied a member of the public the ability to be represented by Agent and Advocate ex-Senator Rex Patrick of www.transparencywarrior.com.au.
“It’s as though Ms Simon deliberately impedes the unrepresented public’s endeavours to access the NCAT’s products and services,” stated Ms Webb, “extremely concerning given her background in advocacy work. NCAT states it meets the needs of all its users but clearly that’s not the case; I needed access to an AVL, nothing extraordinary, and was denied because Jonathan Franklin apparently made the case I required managing, something that could only be done in the presence of NCAT.”
At the appeal before the NCAT Principal Member for the AVL, Ms Webb commenced her submissions by reading a Victim Impact Statement which made reference to the history of agency gross professional misconduct experienced since late 2016 and most particularly the recent actions of Justice NSW staff by their troll-like and punitive behaviour in the exercise of statutory functions under the GIPA Act 2009, all of which was interpreted as blatantly interfering with the judicial processes.
Before she had finished her submissions however the Member interrupted her mid-way stating words to the effect “the Tribunal doesn’t deal with conduct.” The Member was referring to agency conduct.
The Victim Impact Statement and the Member’s comments were not included in today’s decision, making clear the decision is not accurate and most definitely does not align with the Member’s final published paragraph reading “I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record……”
“My Victim Impact Statement formed part of my formal verbal submissions to the Tribunal and the Principal Member, appealing and protesting Justice NSW’s conduct in trolling the internet and not conducting itself as a model litigant in any way whatsoever; the Member’s actions, statement, and resultant published decision obviously completely disregarded those submissions. There was no consideration whatsoever for the atrocious behaviour of Justice NSW, and yet the Tribunal came down on me extremely hard, withholding legitimate access to its AVL services when I had not behaved in any way that could remotely be classified as anti-social or unacceptable, which can only be interpreted as decidedly punitive and biased.
In my extensive personal experience with NCAT, I have not once used my phone or activated a laptop during proceedings; in fact it is always government agencies as respondents to proceedings who do so, right out in the open where it’s being recorded and publicised. Clearly there is openly biased entertaining of agency assertions, where they mostly get exactly what they want from the Tribunal.
This should not be surprising however, when we realise a great number of NCAT members have been around the governmental solicitor traps for decades and are likely to find themselves in a position of conflict of interest as they face agency representatives they know, which is not declared.
I have been before the NCAT in excess of (20) twenty times, and each time I wake up just a little bit more to the way it operates, the agency bias, the agency preferential treatment, and the absolute turning of a blind eye to blatant agency misconduct; some of which qualifies as crimes. In contradiction is the way NCAT unquestioningly accepts any issue raised by any agency staff member about an unrepresented member of the public, now classifying community assistance in the NCAT and Agency arenas as something to be frowned upon and punished,” stated Ms Webb.
“It is a case of picking and choosing, with the University of NSW documented to have secured a grant worth $250,000.00 for what initially comprised of little more than a digital phone book with contacts for making complaints. I would suggest assisting the public to make complaints equates at a very basic level to assisting the public to exercise their rights to access NSW government information, however in the case of the latter this is apparently not acceptable to the benevolent Justice NSW. Depends on who you know I guess.”
Such behaviours and judicial attitudes were evidenced in the cases of McEwan and Webb v Port Stephens Council (2017) when Port Stephens Council staff knowingly and deliberately made false and misleading statements about the unrepresented parties, deliberately acting to pervert the course of justice and committing perjury, and which saw the presiding member neglecting to ask the accused individuals a single question about the claims. The bias is now recorded in historical NCAT case law, with the offenders who made the misrepresentations immortalised Tony Wickham and Lisa Marshall, now infamous in NCAT.
To this date, departmental evidence has disclosed since the inception of the GIPA Act 2009, not one presiding member of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal has made a single recommendation to the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner concerning agency misconduct in the exercise of the GIPA legislation.
Not one.
And that is despite hundreds of petitions from trusting members of the public for action and intervention into documented abuse of the legislation, abuse of position, abuse of judicial process, misleading the Tribunal, imposing unrealistic charges, misrepresenting the existence of requested information, totally defective decisions, acting to pervert the course of justice including blatantly commit perjury, the unlawful use of pseudonyms on legal documents, and agency decision makers hiding behind tax-payer funded legal teams against mostly unrepresented parties.
Today’s decision casts another shadow of disappointment and public disillusionment over NCAT’s choice to publish decisions it knows are not accurate or true reflections of what transpires during proceedings, but stating they are true and accurate. And how does the public prove this is occurring when they are precluded from sharing hearing recordings?!
“It’s a loaded dice no doubt about it,” stated Ms Webb.
The NCAT knows it is a long, painful and stressful ordeal for any unrepresented party to challenge decisions, this particular one requiring an out-of-reach appeal to the NSW Supreme Court, and all for the provision of an Audio Visual Link.
As one Senior Member incorrectly informed another unrepresented party to administrative review proceedings recently, “If you’re not happy with my decision you can appeal! You can take it all the way to the High Court if you want to!” The High Court has formally advised such ‘offer’ to be false; it does not hear matters of administrative review from NCAT. The same member is also on the record omitting critical aspects of proceedings in his decisions of September 2017, but also signing off on his decision that it was a true and accurate account.
The legislated immunity supports such irresponsible, reckless and condescending attitudes, with any reasonable person agreeing there is no need for any NCAT member to exercise any initiative whatsoever nor be concerned about accountability, as the legislation makes clear each and every Member has a free get out of jail card.
And with the NCAT making it more difficult for the public to access the basic facility of an Audio Visual Link, recently disclosing it is an application process that must be formally decided by a Tribunal Member which sets a potential time-consuming costly appeal process in motion, NCAT and NSW government agencies can be confident less of the public will be able to attend hearings out of public interest, with even less witnesses to what is actually occurring within this level of the NSW judiciary. Contact: Jonathan Franklin jonathan.franklin@justice.nsw.gov.au
The decision concerned an appeal of an earlier NCAT decision to refuse an Audio Visual Link (AVL) to the applicant in the proceedings for the forthcoming substantial hearing.
The applicant was Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information with the NSW Dept of Communities & Justice (Justice NSW) as respondent to an administrative review under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, GIPA.
As is usual before the NCAT, Ms Webb is self-represented, is not legally qualified or trained, and is a non-legal professional.
She had made an application to appear at the substantial hearing via AVL link due to the fact her residential location sees her incurring a 300-kilometre round trip to NCAT’s Goulburn Street premises, in addition to premium toll and parking fees.
NCAT had asked the parties for submissions concerning the AVL application, which saw Justice NSW’s in-house solicitor Jonathan Ian Franklin providing evidence he or the department had acted in a troll-like manner, searching Ms Webb’s Twitter and other Social Media accounts to find information to be used against her for the specific purpose and intention of denying her access to the AVL facility.
That trolled information included screenshots of her FREE offers to assist members of the public with their freedom of information and formal administrative review matters, as well as information from secondary websites which she openly disclosed she was affiliated with.
Justice NSW also framed Ms Webb’s Awareness Ribbon promoted on her Site as something the NCAT should frown on, in particular concerning the fact she offered those ribbons free of charge in exchange for sharing the public’s NCAT hearing information, information which is not confidential.
Justice NSW was successful in having Ms Webb’s AVL Application refused, with the deciding member Therese Simon wholeheartedly accepting Justice’ assertions Ms Webb was likely to unlawfully record the proceedings, covertly share information, or take counsel during proceedings if allowed the AVL mechanism.
In contradiction however Member Simon also stated there was no evidence of such behaviour occurring.
Member Simon earlier denied a member of the public the ability to be represented by Agent and Advocate ex-Senator Rex Patrick of www.transparencywarrior.com.au.
“It’s as though Ms Simon deliberately impedes the unrepresented public’s endeavours to access the NCAT’s products and services,” stated Ms Webb, “extremely concerning given her background in advocacy work. NCAT states it meets the needs of all its users but clearly that’s not the case; I needed access to an AVL, nothing extraordinary, and was denied because Jonathan Franklin apparently made the case I required managing, something that could only be done in the presence of NCAT.”
At the appeal before the NCAT Principal Member for the AVL, Ms Webb commenced her submissions by reading a Victim Impact Statement which made reference to the history of agency gross professional misconduct experienced since late 2016 and most particularly the recent actions of Justice NSW staff by their troll-like and punitive behaviour in the exercise of statutory functions under the GIPA Act 2009, all of which was interpreted as blatantly interfering with the judicial processes.
Before she had finished her submissions however the Member interrupted her mid-way stating words to the effect “the Tribunal doesn’t deal with conduct.” The Member was referring to agency conduct.
The Victim Impact Statement and the Member’s comments were not included in today’s decision, making clear the decision is not accurate and most definitely does not align with the Member’s final published paragraph reading “I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record……”
“My Victim Impact Statement formed part of my formal verbal submissions to the Tribunal and the Principal Member, appealing and protesting Justice NSW’s conduct in trolling the internet and not conducting itself as a model litigant in any way whatsoever; the Member’s actions, statement, and resultant published decision obviously completely disregarded those submissions. There was no consideration whatsoever for the atrocious behaviour of Justice NSW, and yet the Tribunal came down on me extremely hard, withholding legitimate access to its AVL services when I had not behaved in any way that could remotely be classified as anti-social or unacceptable, which can only be interpreted as decidedly punitive and biased.
In my extensive personal experience with NCAT, I have not once used my phone or activated a laptop during proceedings; in fact it is always government agencies as respondents to proceedings who do so, right out in the open where it’s being recorded and publicised. Clearly there is openly biased entertaining of agency assertions, where they mostly get exactly what they want from the Tribunal.
This should not be surprising however, when we realise a great number of NCAT members have been around the governmental solicitor traps for decades and are likely to find themselves in a position of conflict of interest as they face agency representatives they know, which is not declared.
I have been before the NCAT in excess of (20) twenty times, and each time I wake up just a little bit more to the way it operates, the agency bias, the agency preferential treatment, and the absolute turning of a blind eye to blatant agency misconduct; some of which qualifies as crimes. In contradiction is the way NCAT unquestioningly accepts any issue raised by any agency staff member about an unrepresented member of the public, now classifying community assistance in the NCAT and Agency arenas as something to be frowned upon and punished,” stated Ms Webb.
“It is a case of picking and choosing, with the University of NSW documented to have secured a grant worth $250,000.00 for what initially comprised of little more than a digital phone book with contacts for making complaints. I would suggest assisting the public to make complaints equates at a very basic level to assisting the public to exercise their rights to access NSW government information, however in the case of the latter this is apparently not acceptable to the benevolent Justice NSW. Depends on who you know I guess.”
Such behaviours and judicial attitudes were evidenced in the cases of McEwan and Webb v Port Stephens Council (2017) when Port Stephens Council staff knowingly and deliberately made false and misleading statements about the unrepresented parties, deliberately acting to pervert the course of justice and committing perjury, and which saw the presiding member neglecting to ask the accused individuals a single question about the claims. The bias is now recorded in historical NCAT case law, with the offenders who made the misrepresentations immortalised Tony Wickham and Lisa Marshall, now infamous in NCAT.
To this date, departmental evidence has disclosed since the inception of the GIPA Act 2009, not one presiding member of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal has made a single recommendation to the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner concerning agency misconduct in the exercise of the GIPA legislation.
Not one.
And that is despite hundreds of petitions from trusting members of the public for action and intervention into documented abuse of the legislation, abuse of position, abuse of judicial process, misleading the Tribunal, imposing unrealistic charges, misrepresenting the existence of requested information, totally defective decisions, acting to pervert the course of justice including blatantly commit perjury, the unlawful use of pseudonyms on legal documents, and agency decision makers hiding behind tax-payer funded legal teams against mostly unrepresented parties.
Today’s decision casts another shadow of disappointment and public disillusionment over NCAT’s choice to publish decisions it knows are not accurate or true reflections of what transpires during proceedings, but stating they are true and accurate. And how does the public prove this is occurring when they are precluded from sharing hearing recordings?!
“It’s a loaded dice no doubt about it,” stated Ms Webb.
The NCAT knows it is a long, painful and stressful ordeal for any unrepresented party to challenge decisions, this particular one requiring an out-of-reach appeal to the NSW Supreme Court, and all for the provision of an Audio Visual Link.
As one Senior Member incorrectly informed another unrepresented party to administrative review proceedings recently, “If you’re not happy with my decision you can appeal! You can take it all the way to the High Court if you want to!” The High Court has formally advised such ‘offer’ to be false; it does not hear matters of administrative review from NCAT. The same member is also on the record omitting critical aspects of proceedings in his decisions of September 2017, but also signing off on his decision that it was a true and accurate account.
The legislated immunity supports such irresponsible, reckless and condescending attitudes, with any reasonable person agreeing there is no need for any NCAT member to exercise any initiative whatsoever nor be concerned about accountability, as the legislation makes clear each and every Member has a free get out of jail card.
And with the NCAT making it more difficult for the public to access the basic facility of an Audio Visual Link, recently disclosing it is an application process that must be formally decided by a Tribunal Member which sets a potential time-consuming costly appeal process in motion, NCAT and NSW government agencies can be confident less of the public will be able to attend hearings out of public interest, with even less witnesses to what is actually occurring within this level of the NSW judiciary. Contact: Jonathan Franklin jonathan.franklin@justice.nsw.gov.au