Ex-Puisne Judge Openly Acts with Bias, Making Unprecedented Decision Outside of the Jurisdiction of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, Setting a New Judicial Record on Multiple Fronts at Break-Neck Speed, 11.03.2020
(16) sixteen calendar days. Or just (12) twelve business days.
That’s all it took for an over-zealous ex-puisne judge Principal Member of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) to publish his decision on an Application for a Restraining Order under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 110. Puisne; the Clayton’s judge; the judge you have when you’re not really having a judge.
The hearing itself took a whole day, part of which was concerned with (2) two Applications for Administrative Review from Webb. But the highlight of the proceedings was no doubt the Section 110 Application. Barrister Brenda Tronson of Level 22 Chambers all-but read out the whole of the GIPA Act 2009. The Applicant Port Stephens Council had provided a full archive box of material to support its case, trawling through every possible file for ammunition. And why not? There was no risk of the Tribunal complaining of the amount of material. After all, just weeks prior, 12th December 2019 in fact, the Tribunal’s Francis Marks had been very clear in his instructions to the Council QUOTE “I think we should revisit the Section 110. And I want lots of documents, lots of documentation!” UNQUOTE. Evidently he was actioning a plan he’d already mapped out in his grandiose mind.
And that’s exactly what he got, all wrapped up ready to go against self-represented respondent Telina Webb. Lots of documents including complaints and reports of misconduct occasioned by trusted public servants. This would be the second time she would face a Section 110. The first one in 2017 by the same agency, failed. Webb was successful. The (2) two previous victims of such an Application, Walker and Powell both in March 2015 with Walker the first since the inception of the GIPA Act in 2009, had not been so fortunate.
The case of Powell would later reveal documented collusion by the (3) three Applicants in that case, involving a Governance Manager to boot. What’s a little case of breach of privacy between sister agencies, eh?
Neither Walker nor Powell appealed so they were stuck with their punishments.
“I’m definitely appealing this. I was an unrepresented Respondent against a team of (6) six; all were solicitors and one barrister, and of course the architect Tony Wickham himself, Council’s Corporate Policeman. There is so much wrong with this decision; the instructions from Marks to Council resulting in a clear case of bias, just as a starter. He also deliberately questioned me about my relationship with my husband which is completely inappropriate; he was smirking as he asked me, he intended to embarrass and humiliate me, what a champion. I can’t forget that. And of course, at the end of the hearing he asked Wickham for his Statement in WORD format. Now we see why. He published the whole thing. His decision was made, and probably already written up, before he walked into the hearing room. He just wanted Wickham’s cherry on top. You can’t hide things like that,” stated Webb.
The orders encompass numerous clear errors in law, which Marks is fully expected to be aware of given his legal experience:1) The order is in perpetuity which is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction2) The legislation makes no provision for orders concerning acting jointly3) The legislation makes no provision for orders concerning acting in concert4) The legislation does not provide any mechanism for costs
“No member of the public should ever have to deal with such a poor quality, unlawful, bias decision, particularly by someone who has sat in a position of senior judicial decision maker during his career. Marks actually stated QUOTE “All humans are inherently biased” UNQUOTE. Pretty sure that gave his game away. The Application should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but he wanted it, the Tribunal Member wanted it. His little notations under the Orders provide that extra deliberate push of the knife by making reference to some kind of conduct on my part, acting vexatiously, and of course the costs. He is a total disgrace! This is the kind of published decision which achieves its primary purpose which is to name, shame and punish the general public for exercising legislated rights (supposed anyway). The GIPA Act 2009 was the NSW Parliament’s free gift to the NSW public, it is the public’s beneficial legislation. It does not exist to support or facilitate the waste of public monies and avoid accountability. But this is how NSW government agencies use it,” stated Webb.
Today’s biased decision is available here.
“I’m certain the decision will be readily embraced by NSW agencies, a roadmap on how to secure a Section 110. What’s also important is the revelation GIPA Applications are not confidential which is very concerning and a warning about the way agencies treat the public’s personal information. Agency privacy statements clearly have no value or credibility whatsoever.”
Contact the stellar cast for Port Stephens Council's Legal Dream Team: Francis Marks, LinkedIn Australia Marks' decision is available here. Tony Wickham, Corporate Policeman / Governance Manager, Tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au Brenda Tronson, Barrister, btronson@level22.com.au Carlo Zoppo, freelance solicitor, formerly of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers; repeatedly turning a blind eye to corruption Matthew Harker, barrister, matt.harker@greenway.com.au, repeatedly turning a blind eye to corruption Lisa Marshall, Council voyeur, Lisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
That’s all it took for an over-zealous ex-puisne judge Principal Member of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) to publish his decision on an Application for a Restraining Order under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 110. Puisne; the Clayton’s judge; the judge you have when you’re not really having a judge.
The hearing itself took a whole day, part of which was concerned with (2) two Applications for Administrative Review from Webb. But the highlight of the proceedings was no doubt the Section 110 Application. Barrister Brenda Tronson of Level 22 Chambers all-but read out the whole of the GIPA Act 2009. The Applicant Port Stephens Council had provided a full archive box of material to support its case, trawling through every possible file for ammunition. And why not? There was no risk of the Tribunal complaining of the amount of material. After all, just weeks prior, 12th December 2019 in fact, the Tribunal’s Francis Marks had been very clear in his instructions to the Council QUOTE “I think we should revisit the Section 110. And I want lots of documents, lots of documentation!” UNQUOTE. Evidently he was actioning a plan he’d already mapped out in his grandiose mind.
And that’s exactly what he got, all wrapped up ready to go against self-represented respondent Telina Webb. Lots of documents including complaints and reports of misconduct occasioned by trusted public servants. This would be the second time she would face a Section 110. The first one in 2017 by the same agency, failed. Webb was successful. The (2) two previous victims of such an Application, Walker and Powell both in March 2015 with Walker the first since the inception of the GIPA Act in 2009, had not been so fortunate.
The case of Powell would later reveal documented collusion by the (3) three Applicants in that case, involving a Governance Manager to boot. What’s a little case of breach of privacy between sister agencies, eh?
Neither Walker nor Powell appealed so they were stuck with their punishments.
“I’m definitely appealing this. I was an unrepresented Respondent against a team of (6) six; all were solicitors and one barrister, and of course the architect Tony Wickham himself, Council’s Corporate Policeman. There is so much wrong with this decision; the instructions from Marks to Council resulting in a clear case of bias, just as a starter. He also deliberately questioned me about my relationship with my husband which is completely inappropriate; he was smirking as he asked me, he intended to embarrass and humiliate me, what a champion. I can’t forget that. And of course, at the end of the hearing he asked Wickham for his Statement in WORD format. Now we see why. He published the whole thing. His decision was made, and probably already written up, before he walked into the hearing room. He just wanted Wickham’s cherry on top. You can’t hide things like that,” stated Webb.
The orders encompass numerous clear errors in law, which Marks is fully expected to be aware of given his legal experience:1) The order is in perpetuity which is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction2) The legislation makes no provision for orders concerning acting jointly3) The legislation makes no provision for orders concerning acting in concert4) The legislation does not provide any mechanism for costs
“No member of the public should ever have to deal with such a poor quality, unlawful, bias decision, particularly by someone who has sat in a position of senior judicial decision maker during his career. Marks actually stated QUOTE “All humans are inherently biased” UNQUOTE. Pretty sure that gave his game away. The Application should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but he wanted it, the Tribunal Member wanted it. His little notations under the Orders provide that extra deliberate push of the knife by making reference to some kind of conduct on my part, acting vexatiously, and of course the costs. He is a total disgrace! This is the kind of published decision which achieves its primary purpose which is to name, shame and punish the general public for exercising legislated rights (supposed anyway). The GIPA Act 2009 was the NSW Parliament’s free gift to the NSW public, it is the public’s beneficial legislation. It does not exist to support or facilitate the waste of public monies and avoid accountability. But this is how NSW government agencies use it,” stated Webb.
Today’s biased decision is available here.
“I’m certain the decision will be readily embraced by NSW agencies, a roadmap on how to secure a Section 110. What’s also important is the revelation GIPA Applications are not confidential which is very concerning and a warning about the way agencies treat the public’s personal information. Agency privacy statements clearly have no value or credibility whatsoever.”
Contact the stellar cast for Port Stephens Council's Legal Dream Team: Francis Marks, LinkedIn Australia Marks' decision is available here. Tony Wickham, Corporate Policeman / Governance Manager, Tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au Brenda Tronson, Barrister, btronson@level22.com.au Carlo Zoppo, freelance solicitor, formerly of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers; repeatedly turning a blind eye to corruption Matthew Harker, barrister, matt.harker@greenway.com.au, repeatedly turning a blind eye to corruption Lisa Marshall, Council voyeur, Lisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au