Hall and Australian Federal Police
[2012] AATA 775
•7 November 2012
[2012] AATA 775
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2012/4385
Re
GLENDA HALL
APPLICANT
And
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
RESPONDENT
INTERLOCUTORY DECISION
Tribunal PROFESSOR RM CREYKE, SENIOR MEMBER
Date 7 November 2012 Place Canberra
The application is dismissed under section 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).
............................[sgd]........................................
PROFESSOR RM CREYKE, SENIOR MEMBER
CATCHWORDS
COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM – jurisdiction of Tribunal - legislation relating to Australian Federal Police
LEGISLATION
Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth)
REASONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECISION
PROFESSOR RM CREYKE, SENIOR MEMBER
BACKGROUND
Ms Glenda Hall resides at Eggleston Crescent, Chifley, ACT. She has sought review of decisions by the Australian Federal Police not to investigate complaints she has made.
The complaints relate to a claim that, for the past three and a half years, persons have been illegally squatting at vacant properties in Eggleston Crescent, Carslaw Street, and Plunkett Street, Chifley, and have caused criminal damage to the properties.
She claims that the persons have also falsely claimed to be relatives or neighbours of hers and that she is a 'Sectioned Mental Health Patient'.
Ms Hall has sought the assistance of the Australian Federal Police to deal with these matters. However, the police have taken no action. According to Ms Hall they have thereby failed to protect the interest of the owners of these properties, including her own, and have therefore acted unlawfully.
The Tribunal had before it a letter from Superintendent Ian Houghton, AFP Professional Standards, dated 28 October 2012, in which he declined to investigate the allegations. The letter explained that ACT Policing 'carefully consider all allegations of criminal activity' but that ACT Policing does not have the resources to investigate every reported crime.
Accordingly Superintended Houghton informed Ms Hall that the AFP would take no further action in the matter. He recommended that if Ms Hall remained dissatisfied she could complain to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Law Enforcement Ombudsman.
His letter followed earlier correspondence from Federal Agent, Melissa Bushby, AFP Professional Standards, dated 14 May 2012, and the ACT Police Minister, Mr Simon Corbell, dated 5 April 2012.
Correspondence in evidence before the Tribunal and relating to the complaints by Ms Hall also included letters from The Hon Brendan O'Connor, Minister for Home Affairs and Police, dated 13 September 2011; and from the Chief Police Officer for the ACT, Mr Roman Quaedvlieg, dated 3 February 2012 and 23 March 2012.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF CLAIM
Ms Hall lodged a claim with the Tribunal on 2 October 2012. She received a reply from the Tribunal also dated 2 October 2012, noting that it did not appear that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the matter. It was explained to Ms Hall that the Tribunal only has jurisdiction over those matters specifically granted to it by statute. Ms Hall was given 14 days from the date of receipt of the letter to show that the Tribunal had authority to hear the matter.
In correspondence dated 17 October 2012, the Tribunal noted that the list of statutes which gives the Tribunal authority to review an application for review does not include the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth). That means the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear complaints about matters concerning the Australian Federal Police.
The correspondence pointed out that instead, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Law Enforcement Ombudsman, are authorised in Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth) to consider complaints about the conduct (including inaction) of the Australian Federal Police.
CONCLUSION
At an interlocutory hearing before the Tribunal on 6 November 2012, the representative for the Australian Federal Police noted that the refusal to investigate Ms Hall’s complaints were made in accordance with the AFP’s internal case categorisation policy. He confirmed that, even if that policy could be said to be authorised by the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth), the Tribunal has not been granted jurisdiction to hear complaints about the AFP.
Ms Hall said she was satisfied that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and would expect a decision to that effect.
As Ms Hall was unable to provide evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that it had jurisdiction to consider her application, in accordance with section 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal dismisses the application.
I certify that the preceding 14 (fourteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member.
......................[sgd]..................................................
Associate
Dated 7 November 2012
Date(s) of hearing 6 November 2012 Applicant In person Advocate for the Respondent Andrew Klein Solicitors for the Respondent Clayton Utz
0
0
1