Coote v NSW Police Force

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

CITATION: Coote v NSW Police Force [2008] NSWADT 220
DIVISION: General Division
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Peter Coote

RESPONDENT
NSW Police Force
FILE NUMBER: 083018
HEARING DATES: On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 18 July 2008
 
DATE OF DECISION: 

11 August 2008
BEFORE: Pearson L - Judicial Member
MATTER FOR DECISION: Preliminary matter
LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information Act 1989
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
CASES CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeal Panel v Director-General, Department of Commerce & Ors [2008] NSWCA 140
Chu v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2005] FCA 1730
Cianfrano v Director-General, Department of Commerce (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195
REPRESENTATION:

In person

R Saunders
ORDERS: Application for review dismissed.


1 On 19 June 2007 the applicant received copies of documents provided by the respondent in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (the FOI Act). One of the documents provided to the applicant was a report dated 28 February 2006 by Sergeant Weston, which included the statement "BACKGROUND: See attached file". On 16 November 2007 the applicant made a further request under the FOI Act for access to "this file and all its contents". There was no response from the respondent, and on 7 January 2008 the applicant requested review of a deemed refusal.

2 On 11 January 2008 the respondent notified the applicant of a determination to provide him with a copy of a fax from Senior Constable Fitzjohn dated 10 February 2006. On 22 January 2008 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review, stating:

          This released document is not any part of the file I am seeking, the document referred to above is part of the correspondence in my endeavours to rejoin the NSW Police dated February 2006. The documents I have mentioned and referred to in the correspondence between Sergeant Weston and Recruitment Branch.

          The documents I request would be my personnel file and would contain letters, notes, emails or other forms of communication from members of the NSW Police and public, about the stature of myself while I served as a police officer, or may contain information after I had served. I request to see all documents contained in the file referred to in the report from Sergeant Weston being a crucial reference in rejection of my application to rejoin the NSW Police.

3 A planning meeting was held on 19 February 2008 during which the respondent's then representative indicated that further searches would be undertaken. The matter was remitted for reconsideration under s65(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (the ADT Act). On 17 April 2008 the respondent notified the applicant that as a result of searches and inquiries undertaken in the Recruitment Branch the "attached file" referred to in Sergeant Weston's report was "only that of the faxed correspondence which was sent to Quakers Hill LAC on 10 February 206 requesting the supervisor reports be provided".

4 At a planning meeting on 1 May 2008 directions were made for filing and serving of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Coote v NSW Police Force and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2008] NSWADT 220
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Coote v NSW Police Force involved a dispute between the applicant, Mr. Coote, and the NSW Police Force. The applicant sought review of a decision made by the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) to terminate his employment. The matter was heard in the NSW Supreme Court. The applicant argued that the decision to terminate his employment was flawed, both procedurally and on the merits. He contended that there were issues with the fairness of the investigation process and that the decision to terminate his employment was not supported by the evidence.

The court was required to determine whether the decision to terminate Mr. Coote's employment was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. The court examined the process followed by the PIC in investigating the matter and making its decision, as well as the evidence upon which the decision was based. The court also considered whether the decision was within the scope of the powers of the PIC and whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances.

In its decision, the court found that the PIC had followed a fair and lawful process in investigating the matter and making its decision. The court held that the decision to terminate Mr. Coote's employment was supported by the evidence and was within the scope of the powers of the PIC. The court found that the PIC had considered all relevant evidence and that the decision was reasonable in all the circumstances. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for review. The decision of the PIC to terminate Mr. Coote's employment was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for review dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.