Port Stephens Council Governance Manager Confirms His Perjury and False and Misleading Statement alongside Council Solicitor
in NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal Proceedings, 28.06.2019
It took (4) four years to finally get to the truth of what happened and who was involved in an insignificant Development Application (DA) in the shire of Port Stephens; a DA which should never have been, but which cost a family approximately $100,000.00 the result of Council repeated manipulation of the DA process and its punitive actions.
Council was openly consulted in relation to the proposed works in a quiet cul-de-sac, where a response to a Council brochure about swimming pool safety sought compliance of a defective Council-approved fence. Yes, Council had approved a swimming pool fence which was completely defective and unlawful.
That was back at the start of the 21st Century, the good old days when lazy public servants could get away with much more if not just about anything.
Along that four-year journey numerous Access Applications were lodged seeing a total of (11) eleven matters filed with the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), including (2) two appeals, all concerning the same humble DA and the heavy handed response from Port Stephens Council as a show of power and complete lack of concern for members of the community it supposedly serves.
The result of the ensuing documentation, released through the Access Application process, GIPA, left no doubt Council’s Governance Manager Tony Leslie Wickham had repeatedly perjured himself to NCAT, in signed statements and evidence given in private away from due scrutiny. He was supported in like manner by his colleague Lisa Helene Marshall Council’s in-house solicitor and officer of the court; they had to align, she was not going to abandon him now after so much manipulation of the DA legislation and abuse of Council’s policies and procedures.
She had too much skin in the game, she was exposed, and Wickham now owned her.
The Access Applicants on this occasion were Telina Webb and Paul McEwan, former home-owners in the Port Stephens Shire but since having to sell their dream home to pay for legal costs directly attributable to Council’s deliberate and calculated conduct.
The initial GIPA decisions were claimed to be made by Mr Wickham’s subordinates. But with his public disclosure to a member of the public in early 2012, “I have re-affirmed with staff that they need to ensure they check with me before anything is released,” it was clear Wickham was influencing decision makers who were supposed to be independent. Such actions constitute offences against the GIPA Act 2009. One of the most serious claims for withholding open access DA record information mandated for release over that (4) four year period, was the Public Interest Against Disclosure clause of the GIPA Act 2009 Section 14 Table 3(f), which claimed that release of sought information would result in the serious harm, serious harassment, or serious risk of intimidation to the authors of the documents. Seriously?! For these particular documents, Council’s young determining officer under Wickham’s instruction and supervision at that point in time, Courtney Coburn would use that clause a total of (47) forty-seven times. Webb and McEwan had never met Coburn, so one wonders how she came to the conclusion they posed any risk in any way. Of course, the reality is she didn't, she was under Wickham's direct control and influence.
But this was not the only extraordinary revelation of Wickham’s actions behind Council office petitioning. He was now also on the record in 2015 making a false and misleading statement to an Investigating Officer of the Information and Privacy Commission, asserting apprehended violence orders had been issued against Webb and McEwan, that police had been called to their neighbourhood due to disturbances involving them, and that they presented a serious risk to public safety.
Thankfully solicitor Carlo Zoppo had a crisis of conscience and provided that document to Webb in 2018. Zoppo knew the GIPA process administered by Wickham would hide it. Zoppo also knew the claim of a risk of harm was fabricated, as did his colleague Matthew Harker; both from Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.
Such was the commitment by Wickham to corrupt the legislation and deny the public’s legal rights to access beneficial legislation, he really was prepared to do anything.
Webb and McEwan decided to take the Council’s GIPA Decisions to the NCAT. They naively believed Wickham would not lie out in the open, and most definitely not to the judiciary; but this would be another level of his behaviours.
Once NCAT proceedings had commenced, Mr Wickham as senior officer and acting representative for the Council was delegated responsible for Redeterminations of the earlier decisions.
Wickham was on the record in 2012 instructing staff “Nothing’s to get past me”, and he meant it. Nothing to do with the DA No: 483 of 2011 for 3 Sapphire Court Raymond Terrace; a development for a privacy screen, gone horribly wrong by a vexatious local government agency discovered making deals and granting favours to a Council colleague.
Now in proceedings Wickham had filed confidential documents, apparently laying bare the actions of Webb and McEwan, the actions which justified reliance on the 3(f) Clause of the GIPA Act. Only problem was, neither Webb or McEwan knew what he was referring to.
So now here he was, with the authority to issue new decisions, and he did so with gusto. In one of the matters now before NCAT, Wickham used the 3(f) clause (73) times. In another, (4) four times. And on he went.
Wickham’s Statement about McEwan read: “Council has also had recourse to a number of further documents detailing alleged threats and inducements made by the Applicant against those making the subject submissions.”
Marshall’s Submission concerning McEwan read: “Council also submits that it is well founded in withholding the information on thebasis disclosure may expose a person to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation. There are numerous documents held by Council which demonstrate the risk of harm or of serious harassment or intimidation is neither trifling nor transient.”
More seriousness to be treated seriously by individuals claiming to be serious. Of course they both knew each other was lying, but they had to maintain the façade. They walked into the NCAT hearing holding hands ever-so-tightly, each owning the other, each able to 'grass' on the other at any time and under anonymity. So much at stake on the basis of mutual trust, or should we say total mistrust. It would take a full hearing, a successful Appeal, and a remittal hearing to finally get to the truth, through a Tribunal Member with enough sense to see there was no harm.
But today it all finally made sense, it was there in black and white, Wickham’s unlawful agreement with a member of the public to conceal and protect open access information mandated for release on a false claim of a risk of harm. Wickham suggested it. Wickham instigated it. Wickham implemented it. Wickham saw it into action and fruition.
It is reasonable to expect the NCAT did not read any of the withheld information. If it had, it would have seen the unlawful agreement staring back as evidence of colluding, giving favour, making deals, acting unconscionably corrupt.
It didn’t matter now. The damage was done. But the documents were released.
“My husband and I could not believe what we were reading. It was right there all along. Wickham’s strategy to assassinate our good character. Marshall supporting him. They relied on confidential submissions and several confidential sessions to make their case without challenge. Not one Tribunal Member tested the claim of a risk of harm. Not one. They just took Wickham’s word for it. He lied. He committed perjury. He had made a false statement to the NSW Information Commission (IPC) with the intention of misleading an Investigating Officer. There never were any AVO’s. Police never attended our property. There is no serious risk to public safety, other than the risk Wickham poses every minute of the day as a Public Officer,” stated Webb.
“I’m not going to help him hide anything, in fact I’ll be doing the exact opposite. Sooner or later he will be called to account, and I want him to know I’ve been a crucial and integral part of that.” Wickham’s Statement and Marshall’s Submissions of January 2017 are here. The unlawful agreement to conceal and protect open access information mandated for release is here. Wickham’s false and misleading letter to the IPC is here. Wickham's Notice of Decision and Schedule of Documents of November 2016 evidencing his use of the 3(f) Clause over (70) seventy times is here. Contact: Lisa Marshall: lisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au Tony Wickham: Tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au Carlo Zoppo: www.lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au Matthew Harker: www.lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au
The Access Applicants on this occasion were Telina Webb and Paul McEwan, former home-owners in the Port Stephens Shire but since having to sell their dream home to pay for legal costs directly attributable to Council’s deliberate and calculated conduct.
The initial GIPA decisions were claimed to be made by Mr Wickham’s subordinates. But with his public disclosure to a member of the public in early 2012, “I have re-affirmed with staff that they need to ensure they check with me before anything is released,” it was clear Wickham was influencing decision makers who were supposed to be independent. Such actions constitute offences against the GIPA Act 2009. One of the most serious claims for withholding open access DA record information mandated for release over that (4) four year period, was the Public Interest Against Disclosure clause of the GIPA Act 2009 Section 14 Table 3(f), which claimed that release of sought information would result in the serious harm, serious harassment, or serious risk of intimidation to the authors of the documents. Seriously?! For these particular documents, Council’s young determining officer under Wickham’s instruction and supervision at that point in time, Courtney Coburn would use that clause a total of (47) forty-seven times. Webb and McEwan had never met Coburn, so one wonders how she came to the conclusion they posed any risk in any way. Of course, the reality is she didn't, she was under Wickham's direct control and influence.
But this was not the only extraordinary revelation of Wickham’s actions behind Council office petitioning. He was now also on the record in 2015 making a false and misleading statement to an Investigating Officer of the Information and Privacy Commission, asserting apprehended violence orders had been issued against Webb and McEwan, that police had been called to their neighbourhood due to disturbances involving them, and that they presented a serious risk to public safety.
Thankfully solicitor Carlo Zoppo had a crisis of conscience and provided that document to Webb in 2018. Zoppo knew the GIPA process administered by Wickham would hide it. Zoppo also knew the claim of a risk of harm was fabricated, as did his colleague Matthew Harker; both from Lindsay Taylor Lawyers.
Such was the commitment by Wickham to corrupt the legislation and deny the public’s legal rights to access beneficial legislation, he really was prepared to do anything.
Webb and McEwan decided to take the Council’s GIPA Decisions to the NCAT. They naively believed Wickham would not lie out in the open, and most definitely not to the judiciary; but this would be another level of his behaviours.
Once NCAT proceedings had commenced, Mr Wickham as senior officer and acting representative for the Council was delegated responsible for Redeterminations of the earlier decisions.
Wickham was on the record in 2012 instructing staff “Nothing’s to get past me”, and he meant it. Nothing to do with the DA No: 483 of 2011 for 3 Sapphire Court Raymond Terrace; a development for a privacy screen, gone horribly wrong by a vexatious local government agency discovered making deals and granting favours to a Council colleague.
Now in proceedings Wickham had filed confidential documents, apparently laying bare the actions of Webb and McEwan, the actions which justified reliance on the 3(f) Clause of the GIPA Act. Only problem was, neither Webb or McEwan knew what he was referring to.
So now here he was, with the authority to issue new decisions, and he did so with gusto. In one of the matters now before NCAT, Wickham used the 3(f) clause (73) times. In another, (4) four times. And on he went.
Wickham’s Statement about McEwan read: “Council has also had recourse to a number of further documents detailing alleged threats and inducements made by the Applicant against those making the subject submissions.”
Marshall’s Submission concerning McEwan read: “Council also submits that it is well founded in withholding the information on thebasis disclosure may expose a person to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation. There are numerous documents held by Council which demonstrate the risk of harm or of serious harassment or intimidation is neither trifling nor transient.”
More seriousness to be treated seriously by individuals claiming to be serious. Of course they both knew each other was lying, but they had to maintain the façade. They walked into the NCAT hearing holding hands ever-so-tightly, each owning the other, each able to 'grass' on the other at any time and under anonymity. So much at stake on the basis of mutual trust, or should we say total mistrust. It would take a full hearing, a successful Appeal, and a remittal hearing to finally get to the truth, through a Tribunal Member with enough sense to see there was no harm.
But today it all finally made sense, it was there in black and white, Wickham’s unlawful agreement with a member of the public to conceal and protect open access information mandated for release on a false claim of a risk of harm. Wickham suggested it. Wickham instigated it. Wickham implemented it. Wickham saw it into action and fruition.
It is reasonable to expect the NCAT did not read any of the withheld information. If it had, it would have seen the unlawful agreement staring back as evidence of colluding, giving favour, making deals, acting unconscionably corrupt.
It didn’t matter now. The damage was done. But the documents were released.
“My husband and I could not believe what we were reading. It was right there all along. Wickham’s strategy to assassinate our good character. Marshall supporting him. They relied on confidential submissions and several confidential sessions to make their case without challenge. Not one Tribunal Member tested the claim of a risk of harm. Not one. They just took Wickham’s word for it. He lied. He committed perjury. He had made a false statement to the NSW Information Commission (IPC) with the intention of misleading an Investigating Officer. There never were any AVO’s. Police never attended our property. There is no serious risk to public safety, other than the risk Wickham poses every minute of the day as a Public Officer,” stated Webb.
“I’m not going to help him hide anything, in fact I’ll be doing the exact opposite. Sooner or later he will be called to account, and I want him to know I’ve been a crucial and integral part of that.” Wickham’s Statement and Marshall’s Submissions of January 2017 are here. The unlawful agreement to conceal and protect open access information mandated for release is here. Wickham’s false and misleading letter to the IPC is here. Wickham's Notice of Decision and Schedule of Documents of November 2016 evidencing his use of the 3(f) Clause over (70) seventy times is here. Contact: Lisa Marshall: lisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au Tony Wickham: Tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au Carlo Zoppo: www.lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au Matthew Harker: www.lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au