CORR and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL - [2012] WASAT 14

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES

ACT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 (WA)

CITATION: CORR and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL [2012] WASAT 14

MEMBER: JUDGE T SHARP (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)

HEARD: 1 NOVEMBER 2011

DELIVERED : 31 JANUARY 2012

FILE NO/S: DR 193 of 2011

BETWEEN: BRIAN CORR
Applicant
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL
Respondent
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Intervener

Catchwords:

Local government - Rules of Conduct - Information acquired from confidential documents of Council - Whether disclosure of information was a breach of Rules of Conduct - Whether information disclosed was in the public domain - Minor breach

Legislation:

Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA), Pt 2, reg 6
Local Government Act 1995 (WA), s 5.23, s 5.94, s 5.94(n), s 5.94(u)(ii), s 5.95(3), s 5.104(1), s 5.105(1), s 5.106, s 5.107(1), s 5.107(2), s 5.110(2)(a), s 5.110(6), s 120, s 125, cl 2, Sch 5.1
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 29(3)(c)(ii), s 31(1)

Result:

The decision of the Local Government Standards Panel is upheld

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Self-represented
Respondent:     Mr N John
Intervener:     Mr N John

Solicitors:

Applicant:     N/A
Respondent:     State Solicitor's Office
Intervener:     State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Mazza and Local Government Standards Panel [2009] WASAT 165
R v Mansfield [2011] WASCA 132

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

The Local Government Standards Panel made a finding that a Councillor of the City of Joondalup, Mr Corr, had breached the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA) by disclosing information from confidential documents tabled at a meeting of Council which was closed to members of the public. The Standards Panel ordered that Mr Corr be publicly censured. Mr Corr sought a review by the Tribunal of the Standards Panel's decision.
The Tribunal considered whether the information which Mr Corr disclosed was 'information' within the meaning of the Regulations, whether he had in fact derived that information from the documents in question and whether the documents were confidential, again within the meaning of the Regulations.
The Tribunal upheld the decision the Standards Panel, both in respect of its finding that there had been a breach of the Regulations and in respect of the sanction for that breach.

Introduction

On 6 April 2011, the respondent made a finding that the applicant had committed a breach of reg 6(2)(a) of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (WA) (Rules of Conduct Regulations) and on 23 May 2011, the respondent made orders imposing a sanction on the applicant by way of punishment for that breach.
The applicant filed an application with the Tribunal dated 13 June 2011, seeking a review of the respondent's findings that he breached the Rules of Conduct Regulations, together with a review of the punishment imposed upon him.
Having regard to the possibility that exists in a review proceeding that the Tribunal may invite the decisionmaker to reconsider the decision (s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CORR and LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PANEL 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: [2012] WASAT 14
Decision Date: 31 JANUARY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Corr, a local government officer, and the Local Government Standards Panel. Corr was accused of breaching the Rules of Conduct by disclosing information from confidential council documents. The dispute was brought before the court to determine whether the disclosure was a breach of the Rules of Conduct and, if so, whether the information was already in the public domain. The court was also required to decide whether the breach was minor.

The key legal issue was whether Corr's disclosure of information from confidential documents constituted a breach of the Rules of Conduct. The court had to examine the nature of the information disclosed and determine if it was already publicly known. Additionally, the court needed to assess the severity of the breach, specifically whether it was minor.

The court found that Corr had indeed breached the Rules of Conduct by disclosing information from confidential council documents. However, the court also determined that the information disclosed was already in the public domain, which mitigated the severity of the breach. The court concluded that the breach was minor and did not warrant severe disciplinary action. As a result, Corr was found to have committed a minor breach of the Rules of Conduct.

The court ordered that Corr be reprimanded for the minor breach of the Rules of Conduct. The reprimand was intended to serve as a warning and to ensure that Corr understood the importance of adhering to the Rules of Conduct in the future. The court did not impose any further penalties, given that the breach was minor and the information was already in the public domain.

Orders