Assi v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

[2025] NSWCATAD 142

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Assi v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 142

Hearing dates:

29 January 2025

Date of orders:

17 June 2025

Decision date:

17 June 2025

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

J Gatland, Senior Member

Decision:

(1) The time for Mr Assi to file his application for review is extended to 7 September 2024.

(2) Document 15 in the confidential bundle is not confidential and should be released to the Applicant.

(3) Save for the document the subject of order 2:

(a) The disclosure to the Applicant or his legal representatives of the confidential material the subject of the Respondent’s application dated 26 November 2024 and the matters contained in that material is prohibited.

(b) Publication of the confidential material the subject of the Respondent’s application dated 26 November 2024 and the matters contained in that material is prohibited.

(c) Disclosure to the Applicant in these proceedings or his legal representatives of the confidential affidavit, filed by the Respondent in support of the application for non-publication and non-disclosure dated 26 November 2024 and of matters contained in that affidavit is prohibited.

(d) Publication of the confidential affidavit, filed by the Respondent in support of the application for non-publication and non-disclosure dated 26 November 2024 and of matters contained in that affidavit is prohibited.

(4) Pursuant to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 64(1)(c) and s 64(1)(d), the transcript and recording of the hearing of the interlocutory application on 29 January 2025 conducted in private in accordance with an order previously made pursuant to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 49(2) are not to be published or released to the Applicant or the public.

(5) Pursuant to Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, s 64(1)(c) and s 64(1)(d), the contents of all paragraphs in these Reasons marked “[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]” are not to be published or released to the Applicant or the public.

(6) The proceedings is listed for further directions on 24 June 2025 at 10:30am.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – extension of time in which to bring an application for review – whether leave is required to file application where an internal review has not been finalised within the statutory timeframe but has subsequently been determined.

PROCEDURE – suppression orders – confidential nature of material –whether desirable to make orders under Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 64 – extent of orders necessary.

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), ss 53(6), 53(9), 55(2), 55(3), 58

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 36, 41, 49, 64

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2013 (NSW), rr 24(3), 24(4)

Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 53(6), 55(3), 53(9), 56(6), 73(1), 73(2), 75(f)

Cases Cited:

Cain v Glass (No 2) (1985) 3 NSWLR 230

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Holdsworth [2019] NSWCATAP 167

Gene Simring v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2009] NSWSC 270

Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22

John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal (NSW) (1986) 5 NSWLR 465

Metleg v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 358

Pendrick v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAD 27

State of New South Wales (Justice Health) v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69

Webb v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2025] NSWCATAD 38

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Kamal Assi (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)

Representation:

One Group Legal (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/00324492

Publication restriction:

Pursuant to Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, s 64(1)(c) and s 64(1)(d), the contents of all paragraphs in these Reasons marked “[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]” are not to be published or released to the Applicant or the public.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1. The Applicant, Mr Assi, was first granted a firearms licence in August 2008. His application cited that his reasons for seeking such a licence were sport/target shooting and recreational hunting/vermin control.

2. His firearms licence was revoked in December 2019 and that decision was affirmed on internal review on 11 September 2020.

3. On 16 August 2022, a delegate of the Respondent, the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force, having formed an opinion that the Applicant, Kamal Assi was “not a fit, in the public interest to have possession of a firearm, firearm parts or ammunition”, signed a Firearms Prohibition Order (FPO) against Mr Assi under the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 73(1).

4. The FPO, along with a Weapons Prohibition Order which is not reviewable and is not relevant to these proceedings, was personally served on Mr Assi several months later, on 5 January 2023. It was from that date that the FPO came into force: Firearms Act, s 73(2).

5. In these proceedings, Mr Assi seeks a review of the Commissioner’s decision to make a firearms prohibition order against him. That decision is a reviewable decision: Firearms Act, s 75(f). The grounds on which Mr Assi brings his application are that he is a fit and proper person to possess a firearm or prohibited weapon, that he has never engaged in criminal activity, that he has previously held a firearms licence and was never in breach of any law while holding that licence and that, having been the subject of an FPO since 5 January 2023, Mr Assi had demonstrated that he is not a risk to the community.

Status of the substantive proceedings

6. Mr Assi applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Commissioner’s decision to issue him with an FPO on 7 September 2024.

7. The application was listed for directions on 17 September 2024, at which time the Tribunal made a series of timetabling directions for the provision of evidence and submissions. Those directions have been subsequently amended and vacated in light of some delays in the hearing of the interlocutory application for confidentiality orders.

8. On 1 October 2024, the Commissioner filed a bundle of documents pursuant to the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), s 58.

9. The Commissioner filed a further tranche of documents pursuant to the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 58 on 26 November 2024.

10. The matter will be listed for further directions to determine a timetable for the provision of evidence and submissions, as well as setting the date for a final hearing and I will make an order to that effect.

The interlocutory applications to be determined

11. Consequently, at an early stage in the proceedings, two applications were made which are determined for the reasons below:

1. First, by an application in writing made on 19 December 2024, the Applicant seeks that the Tribunal extend the time in which to bring his application. In respect of that application, on 9 December 2024 the Applicant filed an affidavit deposed by him on 6 November 2024 (Extension of Time Application); and

2. Second, by an application filed on 26 November 2024, the Commissioner applies for confidentiality orders pursuant to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 64 (Confidentiality Application).

12. The hearing of the above applications took place in person. The hearing was conducted partly in public and partly as a confidential, private hearing that took place in the absence of the Applicant and his representatives. After the private hearing was concluded, the Applicant and his representatives were invited to appear again and were given the opportunity to cross-examine the Commissioner’s witness and make further submissions, in addition to the written submissions filed on his behalf prior to the hearing.

Extension of Time Application

13. The history of Mr Assi’s application for an internal review of the decision to impose and FPO against him is relevant to the question of whether to grant his application to extend the time in which to apply for administrative review by this Tribunal.

14. On 24 January 2023, less than two weeks after the FPO was served on him, Mr Assi’s solicitors sent an email to the Commissioner requesting an internal review of the decision to issue the FPO. With this request, the solicitors also provided a copy of the FPO and a copy of a National Digital Police Certificate that showed there were no disclosable court outcomes or outstanding matters recorded against Mr Assi’s name and date of birth held by any police service in Australia. The covering letter referred to this document as Mr Assi’s “criminal antecedents”.

15. Accordingly, from 14 February 2023, the internal review was taken to have been finalised because the Commissioner had not notified Mr Assi of the outcome of the internal review: Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 53(9)(b). The consequence of this was that Mr Assi could apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review of the decision to issue the FPO against him from 14 February 2023: Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 55(3).

16. The time in which to bring an application to the Tribunal is regulated by Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 55(2) and the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2013 (NSW), rr 24(3) and 24(4). Rules 24(3) and 24(4) relevantly provide that:

(3) Unless the Tribunal grants an extension under section 41 of the Act, an application must be made—

…

(b)  in any other case—by the end of the default application period.

(4)  The default application period for the purposes of subrule (3)(b) is—

(a)  in the case where the applicant has duly applied for an internal review of the administratively reviewable decision under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997—the period of 28 days after the day on which the internal review is taken to have been finalised under section 53(9) of that Act, …

17. The effect of those provisions, if one relies solely on the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 53(9)(b), is that having not received a decision on his application for internal review by 14 February 2023, Mr Assi had until 14 March 2023 to apply to the Tribunal for administrative review of the decision to impose the FPO on him.

18. However, Mr Assi did not do this. Instead, and like many persons who seek an internal review, he waited until he received the determination of the internal review before taking the matter any further. There are good reasons for an applicant to wait to receive a determination on an internal review; not the least of which is the avoidance of unnecessary legal costs and wasted time in circumstances where an internal review may lead to a reconsideration of a decision that is satisfactory to an applicant. This was not a reason expressed by Mr Assi, however, who, in his affidavit, explained only that his solicitor had told him that “the internal review process will take a considerable time” and therefore he decided to exercise patience and wait for the Commissioner’s response.

19. The Commissioner determined the internal review on 8 August 2024, more than 18 months after Mr Assi had sought an internal review. The Commissioner did not account for the delay, nor did the Commissioner seek Mr Assi’s agreement to extend the time in which to determine the internal review. In determining the internal review, a delegate of the Commissioner determined that the original order should be affirmed and provided reasons for arriving at that decision. In notifying Mr Assi of the decision on internal review, the delegate of the Commissioner informed him that, if he was not satisfied with the decision, he could seek external review to this Tribunal within 28 days of the notice of determination. Mr Assi states in his affidavit, that when he received the internal review decision, he understood, by reference to the words at the bottom of the third page of that decision, that he had 28 days within which to apply to the Tribunal for review.

20. Accordingly, Mr Assi says that he instructed his solicitor to prepare an application to the Tribunal and that on 2 September 2024, he applied for a review of the Commissioner’s decision to issue him with an FPO.

21. The Commissioner raised in interparty correspondence a view that Mr Assi has brought his application to the Tribunal out of time and that he should have applied to the Tribunal when, 21 days after lodging his application for internal review, he had not received a determination of that internal review. That view was based on an interpretation of the effect and operation of the Administrative Decisions Review Act, ss 55(3) and 53(9) and the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules, rr 24(3) and 24(4).

22. In the same inter-party correspondence, the Commissioner also indicated her consent to any application the Applicant wishes to make for an extension of time.

23. Section 53(9) has two sub-paragraphs; separated by the disjunctive “or”:

(9) When an internal review is finalised An internal review is taken to be finalised if:

(a) the applicant is notified of the outcome of the review under subsection (6),

or

(b) the applicant is not notified of the outcome of the review within 21 days after the application for the review is lodged (or such other period as the administrator and person agree on).

Note—

Section 55 provides that an interested person may apply for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision once an internal review of the decision is taken to be finalised under this subsection.

24. The Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 53(6) is also relevant to the construction of s 53(9), that subsection says:

(6) Notice of result of review and appeal rights Within 21 days after the application for the internal review is lodged (or such other period as the administrator and person agree on), the administrator must notify the applicant in writing of:

(a) the outcome of the internal review, and

(b) the reasons for the decision in the internal review, and

(c) the right of the person to have the decision reviewed by the Tribunal.

25. At the hearing of the applications, I enquired of the Commissioner’s representatives whether, given the Commissioner is mandated under the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 53(6) to notify internal review applicants of an outcome and reasons within 21 days of a request for internal review unless agreement was obtained to extend that time, the Commissioner intended to correspond with applicants to obtain agreement to extend that time. Such correspondence would also require the Commissioner to inform internal review applicants of their review rights under the Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 53(9)(b) and the applicable time limits for bringing the matter before the Tribunal. I was informed by the Commissioner’s representative appearing at the hearing that he would obtain instructions on that question.

26. While the Commissioner has applied a permissible construction to the operation of Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 53(9); it is arguable, in my respectful opinion, that the priority of the provisions and the disjunctive “or” between s 53(9)(a) and s 53(9)(b) means that an internal review may be considered finalised and therefore an application to this Tribunal made either:

1. when an applicant has received a notice of an outcome of an internal review; or,

2. where the decision-maker has breached its mandatory obligations under s 53(3), 21 days after the application for internal review was made.  

27. After taking proper regard for the Commissioner’s correspondence, the Applicant duly sought an extension of time in which to bring his application for review and relied on an affidavit, by him, concerning his understanding of various relevant facts. That affidavit was read without objection on the application. By his affidavit, the Applicant explained, in summary, that he was told by his then-solicitor that the internal review would take a long time and that he took the advice on the decision on review, when it was finally communicated, that he had 28 days in which to apply to the Tribunal as being correct.

28. It is clear from his evidence that the Applicant relied on legal advice and wasted no time in agitating for his right to external review once he received the Commissioner’s determination of the internal review. That places him in an entirely different position from the applicant in Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Holdsworth [2019] NSWCATAP 167. It is also apparent that he has at least an arguable case having regard to the fact that he has no criminal record. Further, there was no contention that the Commissioner was prejudiced by any delay on Mr Assi’s part in bringing his application to the Tribunal. These are all relevant considerations in considering whether the Tribunal should grant an extension of time: Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22 [18]-[22].

29. The Tribunal has the power to extend the time in which an application for review may be filed: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 41. The power given under that provision is unfettered. However, it must be exercised in a manner consistent with the guiding principle expressed in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, s 36: Jackson at [18]. It is a far broader power than the provisions that apply in other matters or, indeed, the provisions that applied to the predecessor to this Tribunal: compare Webb v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2025] NSWCATAD 38 at [3], [36].

30. Having regard to the evidence set out above, the applicable provisions, and the considerations set out by the Appeal Panel in Jackson at [22] (albeit in relation to an extension of time to appeal), I am satisfied that Mr Assi should be granted an extension of time in which to bring his application before the Tribunal. To do otherwise would work an injustice between the parties. That extension is to be granted up to 2 September 2024 – the date when he filed his application in the Tribunal.

The Commissioner’s Application and Orders Sought

31. By an application dated 26 November 2024, which accompanied the second bundle of s 58 documents, the Commissioner sought the following orders;

1. Pursuant to s 49 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the hearing of this application, as well as the hearing of the application in the substantive proceedings (Private Hearings), be conducted in the absence of the Applicant, the legal representative for the Applicant and the public in so far as it relates to the information contained, and documents referred to, in the Confidential Affidavit of Acting Assistant Commissioner Kirsty Heyward dated 26 November 2024 (the Confidential Material);

2. Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, the publication of any evidence given in the Private Hearings and of matters contained in the Confidential Material is prohibited.

3. Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, the disclosure to the Applicant and his legal representatives of any evidence given during the Private Hearings and the contents of the Confidential Material is prohibited.

4. Pursuant to s 64(1)(b), s 64(1)(c), and s 64(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, the publication or disclosure to the Applicant, the legal representatives of the Applicant or the public, of the transcript and recording of the Private Hearing is prohibited.

32. As to the first order sought by the Commissioner, at the hearing of the interlocutory applications, the Tribunal, in accordance with the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, s 49, ordered that a Private Hearing take place in part for the purposes of the interlocutory hearing. This was because I was satisfied that it was desirable, having regard to the nature of that material and the risks associated with its disclosure that, on the interlocutory hearing of this matter, the Tribunal should hear confidential submissions and receive evidence that subject of proposed confidentiality orders in a manner that would render such an application moot. The present application seeks orders to facilitate confidentiality before the presiding member at the final hearing. I consider that application is too broad and may restrict the way the presiding member at hearing receives the Confidential Material. I therefore decline to make that order as proposed.

32. However, given the orders which I intend to make in respect of the Confidentiality Application, I will not identify the Confidential Material separately in any non-confidential version of my reasons.

The law and submissions on confidentiality and non-publication orders

34. Confidentiality orders relating to evidence and proceedings are regulated by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, s 64. That provision relevantly provides:

64 Tribunal may restrict disclosures concerning proceedings

(1) If the Tribunal is satisfied that it is desirable to do so by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence or matter or for any other reason, it may (of its own motion or on the application of a party) make any one or more of the following orders:

(a) an order prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of the name of any person (whether or not a party to proceedings in the Tribunal or a witness summoned by, or appearing before, the Tribunal),

(b) an order prohibiting or restricting the publication or broadcast of any report of proceedings in the Tribunal,

(c) an order prohibiting or restricting the publication of evidence given before the Tribunal, whether in public or in private, or of matters contained in documents lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence by the Tribunal,

(d) an order prohibiting or restricting the disclosure to some or all of the parties to the proceedings of evidence given before the Tribunal, or of the contents of a document lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence by the Tribunal, in relation to the proceedings.

35. Accordingly, when considering an application for orders to restrict disclosure in or of proceedings, the Tribunal must be satisfied, in terms, that the imposition of restrictions is “desirable”. That satisfaction turns on the confidential nature of the material before the Tribunal or for any other reason. That provision allows the Tribunal to prohibit or restrict:

1. disclosure of names of persons; s 64(1)(a),

2. the publication or broadcast of any report of the Tribunal’s proceedings; s 64(1)(b),

3. the publication of evidence before the Tribunal whether in public or in private session of matters contained in material received as evidence or lodged with it; s 64(1)(c), and

4. the disclosure to some or all parties to the proceedings of evidence before the Tribunal, the content of a document, or of matters contained in material whether received as evidence or lodged with the Tribunal; s 64(1)(d).

36. In considering the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, s 64 and s 49, the Tribunal noted in Metleg v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 358 at [38]-[39] that:

“It has been stated that the CAT Act, s 64(1) implicitly permits a denial of procedural fairness: Grant v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 158 at [24]; Mekhitarian v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 309 at [17]. I agree that orders made under CAT Act, s 64(1) operates to deny some aspects of procedural fairness. In making orders under CAT Act, s 64(1) the Tribunal is required to deliberate on whether and to what extent any restriction on disclosure concerning its proceedings is desirable, having regard to the factors set out in the provisions and the basic common-law precept of open justice and matters relevant to each particular case; State of New South Wales (Justice Health) v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69 at [61], [50] – [53] and [81] – [82]; Grant at [19].

The word “desirable” necessarily has prominence in guiding the Tribunal on the use of these restrictions. The principle of open justice is of course key; Dezfouli at [61], Bellamy v Bellamy [2018] NSWCA 534 at [30]though that principle is not the sole consideration; Dezfouli at [81] and the Tribunal’s powers to make suppression orders are less constrained than a court considering similar matters at common law; CYL v YZA [2017] NSWCATAP 105 at [102].”

37. In his submissions, Mr Assi referred the Tribunal to the Decision in John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal (NSW) (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 per McHugh AJA at 476-477 as authority for the proposition that the principle of open justice is well established at common law, and that the common law position was codified for the Tribunal, in particular the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, s 49. There is nothing to cavil with in respect of that submission, save for the fact that the Tribunal’s role in determining the present application is not to make suppression orders in relation to evidence adduced, but to make orders restricting or prohibiting publication or disclosure of material that is yet to be tendered. It is only if the Commissioner seeks to adduce this material that the presiding Tribunal member will have to determine relevance and weight at hearing, as well as decide whether to continue to extend the orders I intend to make to give effect to my consideration below.

38. Conformably with the Applicant’s submissions, in Pendrick v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAD 27 at [110]-130], the Tribunal identified eleven principles emerging from a review of the relevant authorities. Relevantly, the Tribunal in Pendrick considered that one factor of relevance may be the underlying principle of the Firearms Act, which is to confirm that the possession and use of firearms is conditional upon the overriding need to ensure public safety. The Tribunal further reinforced the principle that confidentiality and non-publication orders should be made “sparingly” for the purpose of securing as much relevant evidence as possible for the Tribunal without violating the confidentiality that a party or witness is entitled to preserve.

39. Mr Assi also made submissions on the appropriate procedure that should be undertaken with regard to the documents that are the subject of the Application.

40. He submitted, by way of example, that Event Reports stored on the Commissioner’s COPS database are not “entirely privileged” and that material of this kind is routinely produced by the Commissioner to parties in proceedings in, for example, the Supreme Court of New South Wales where the Commissioner has sought Serious Crime Prevention Orders. In that regard, he submitted that if the material was such that it attracted a claim of public interest immunity, then the “proper course” for the Respondent was to serve redacted versions on him and allow him the opportunity to consider whether he wished to challenge such a claim.

41. While that may be a reasonable approach to take in Court proceedings, it is not the approach that is necessarily to be applied to this Tribunal. Court proceedings, including an application by the Commissioner for Serious Crime Prevention Orders, are judicial, not administrative, in character and may well require a different approach. Whereas the Tribunal is conducting a review of an administrative decision which includes undertaking a risk assessment, having regard to relevant the provisions of the Firearms Act.

42. Turning again to the relevant principles regarding non-publication, and without identifying the material, I observe that confidential material which may be the subject of a claim for public interest immunity in Court proceedings is of such a nature as to be considered “special” and relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of whether it is desirable to make orders restricting the disclosure or publication; State of New South Wales (Justice Health) v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69 at [82].

43. The courts have generally recognised that the information which reveals a confidential informant should be immune from production being a manifestation of the doctrine of public interest immunity and termed ‘the informer rule’; Cain v Glass (No 2) (1985) 3 NSWLR 230 at 247 – 248 per McHugh JA, and further John Fairfax at 172B per Mahoney JA.

44. In Gene Simring v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2009] NSWSC 270, per Smart AJ, the policy behind the protection of communications between police and confidential sources was stated to be as follows:

“When a person speaks with the police in respect of a criminal offence and reveals sensitive matters that person expects that statements made will only be used for the purpose of the Court proceedings and not otherwise. There are limits on what can be published. There is a strong public interest in criminal offences being reported to the police and the sources of information not drying up. If victims of crime thought that statements made in the course of a criminal investigation revealing their personal affairs, or some of them, could be released to an applicant under the FOI Act, those sources of information may well dry up or at least there could be a reduction in the flow of information available to the police. …”

45. The approach I have taken in respect to each of the documents that are the subject of the Commissioner’s application is intended to be consistent with the authorities cited above.

The Confidential Documents

Document 1

46. Document 1, that appears at pages 1 – 3 of the Confidential Exhibit, is the same document (save for the red redacted areas) as the document that appears at Tab 1 of the Commissioner’s supplementary bundle of documents filed pursuant to the ADR Act, s 58 on 26 November 2024 (Second s 58 Bundle). It is an intelligence report generated from the COPS system, the last three digits of which are 657.

47. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

Document 2

48. Document 2, that appears at pages 3 – 5 of the Confidential Exhibit, is the same document (save for the red redacted areas) as the document that appears at Tab 20 of the Commissioner’s bundle of documents filed pursuant to the ADR Act, s 58 on 1 October 2024 (First s 58 Bundle). It is an event report concerning an event that occurred on 19 June 2016 and has been generated from the COPS system, the last three digits of which are 979.

49. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

Document E38791107

50. Doc E38791107 filed in the First s 58 Bundle is described as having redactions that are the subject of an application under s 59. I was informed by the Commissioner at a further direction hearing of this application that this document was subsequently filed without relevant redactions in the subsequent tranche of s 58 documents.

Document 3

51. Document 3 of the Confidential Exhibit is the same document (save for the red redacted areas) as the document that appears at Tab 21 of the First s 58 Bundle. It is an event report concerning an event that occurred on 10 July 2016 and has been generated from the COPS system, the last three digits of which is 240.

52. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

Document 4

53. Document 4 of the Confidential Exhibit is the same document (save for the red redacted areas) as the document that appears at Tab 3 of the Second s 58 Bundle. It is an event report concerning an event that occurred on 10 July 2016 and has been generated from the COPS system, the last three digits of which are 029.

54. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION].

Document 5

55. Document 5 of the Confidential Exhibit has not been provided to the Applicant in any form and is intended to be entirely withheld.

56. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

Document 6

57. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

Document 7

58. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

59. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

60. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

61. Given the nature of the material contained in Document 7, I have concluded that an order for confidentiality is to be made in respect of this document for the purposes of these proceedings. But note that its relevance will be a matter to be determined by the presiding member at hearing, if it is to be tendered at all.

Document 8

62. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

63. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

Documents 9, 10 and 11

64. Documents 9, 10 and 11 of the Confidential Exhibit, which commence from, respectively, pp 48, 51 and 54, are police intelligence reports.

65. [NOT FOR PUBLICATON]

Document 12

66. Document 12 of the Confidential Exhibit is a COPS record of a Crime Stoppers report.

67. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

68. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

69. I am also unable to see any practical way that this material could be redacted to allow even partial release.

70. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

Document 13

71. Document 13 of the Confidential Exhibit is a police intelligence report.

72. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

Document 14

73. Document 14 of the Confidential Exhibit contains material that has the potential to disclose Police intelligence and investigative methods. I am satisfied that it cannot be redacted in such a way that would allow partial release to the Applicant.

Document 15

74. Document 15, the last document in the confidential bundle, is a copy of the NSW Government Information Classification, Labelling and Handling Guidelines. This is not a confidential document, and ideally, this kind of material should simply be tendered and served on the Applicant as part of the Commissioner’s application.

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

75. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

76. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

77. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

78. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

79. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

80. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

Orders

81. For the foregoing reasons, I make the following orders:

1. The time for Mr Assi to file his application for review is extended to 7 September 2024.

2. Document 15 in the confidential bundle is not confidential and should be released to the Applicant.

3. Save for the document the subject of order 2:

1. The disclosure to the Applicant or his legal representatives of the confidential material the subject of the Respondent’s application dated 26 November 2024 and the matters contained in that material is prohibited.

2. Publication of the confidential material the subject of the Respondent’s application dated 26 November 2024 and the matters contained in that material is prohibited.

3. Disclosure to the Applicant in these proceedings or his legal representatives of the confidential affidavit, filed by the Respondent in support of her application dated 26 November 2024 and of matters contained in that affidavit is prohibited.

4. Publication of the confidential affidavit, filed by the Respondent and of matters contained in that affidavit is prohibited.

4. Pursuant to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 64(1)(c) and s 64(1)(d), the transcript and recording of the hearing of the interlocutory application on 29 January 2025 conducted in private in accordance with an order previously made pursuant to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 49(2) are not to be published or released to the Applicant or the public.

5. Pursuant to Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, s 64(1)(c) and s 64(1)(d), the contents of all paragraphs in these Reasons marked “[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]” are not to be published or released to the Applicant or the public.

6. The proceedings is listed for further directions on 24 June 2025 at 10:30am.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 18 June 2025