Crisp v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force - [2024] NSWCATAD 179

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Crisp v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 179
Hearing dates: 26 June 2024
Date of orders: 1 July 2024
Decision date: 01 July 2024
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: D Dinnen, Senior Member
Decision:
Leave is therefore refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).

Catchwords:
HUMAN RIGHTS – Discrimination – equal opportunity – leave required for complaint to proceed – principles applying to grant of leave – goods and services

Legislation Cited:
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Police Service Act 1990

Cases Cited:
Chalker v Murrays Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 282
Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133
Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143
Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388
Langley v Niland [1981] 2 NSWLR 104
Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Ltd [1999] NSWADT 73
Robinson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] FCA 770
Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; (2000) 49 NSWLR 262
State of New South Wales v Whiteoak [2014] NSWCATAP 99

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Gordon Crisp (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)
Representation:
Appellant (self-represented)
Solicitors:
Maddocks Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00196845
Publication restriction: none

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

The Applicant seeks leave pursuant to s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the Act) for his complaint of age discrimination in the provision of goods and services to be heard by the Tribunal. On 23 January 2020 Anti-Discrimination New South Wales (ADNSW) received a complaint from Gordon Crisp (the Applicant), a now 86 year old man with severe diabetes who is resident in an old-age home. The Applicant’s complaint is essentially that the police have treated him less favourably than they would other persons in the same or similar circumstances, because of his age. The conduct that he specifically complained about is in relation to a complaint that he made to police, regarding an alleged assault which took place on 23 November 2023 at a meeting of the Bathurst Regional Council in front of at least 50 people.
The Applicant claims that Police did not investigate the complaint appropriately or at all, and have dismissed the investigation without conducting inquiries of any other persons, or of the hospital to which he was taken for treatment as a result of the assault and where he remained for 13 days.
The Applicant also alleged that in his dealings with police following the making of the complaint he was treated less favourably, in that he did not receive a fully completed victims card with an event number. The Applicant alleges that the Commissioner of Police lied to ADNSW in relation to this, stating that he had received a completed victims card, and additionally lied by stating to ADNSW that he had nominated contact by mobile phone, when he did not and had never owned a mobile phone previously, and could not use one.
Additionally,…

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.

Continue reading Crisp v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

Details

AGLC: Crisp v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 179
Case: [2024] NSWCATAD 179
Decision Date: 01 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crisp v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force, involved an application for leave to proceed with a complaint of discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The applicant alleged that the respondent had discriminated against him on the grounds of disability, in the provision of goods and services. The matter was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the applicant had established a prima facie case of discrimination that warranted the grant of leave to proceed. The court considered the statutory criteria under section 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act, which outlined the principles for granting leave. These principles included the merits of the case, the public interest, and the applicant's right to equality before the law. The court also had to determine whether the applicant's complaint was within the scope of the Act and whether the alleged discrimination pertained to the provision of goods and services.

The Civil and Administrative Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination. The evidence presented did not sufficiently support the claim that the respondent's actions were discriminatory or that they were related to the provision of goods and services as defined under the Act. The tribunal found that the applicant had not met the threshold required to establish a case that warranted leave to proceed. Consequently, the application for leave was refused under section 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act.

The tribunal's decision was based on a detailed examination of the evidence and the legal framework provided by the Anti-Discrimination Act. The tribunal's refusal of leave meant that the applicant's complaint could not proceed further without additional evidence or a different legal basis. The court's reasoning underscored the importance of meeting the statutory criteria for leave and the stringent nature of the legal standards required in discrimination cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave is therefore refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Crisp v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 179
Hearing dates:	26 June 2024
Date of orders:	1 July 2024
Decision date:	01 July 2024
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	D Dinnen, Senior Member
Decision:	Leave is therefore refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).
Catchwords:	HUMAN RIGHTS – Discrimination – equal opportunity – leave required for complaint to proceed – principles applying to grant of leave – goods and services
Legislation Cited:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Police Service Act 1990
Cases Cited:	Chalker v Murrays Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 282 Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133 Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143 Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388 Langley v Niland [1981] 2 NSWLR 104 Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Ltd [1999] NSWADT 73 Robinson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] FCA 770 Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; (2000) 49 NSWLR 262 State of New South Wales v Whiteoak [2014] NSWCATAP 99
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Gordon Crisp (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)
Representation:	Appellant (self-represented) Solicitors: Maddocks Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/00196845
Publication restriction:	none