McLennan and Centrelink
[2007] AATA 1302
•4 May 2007
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1302
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2006/752
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re JEFFREY K J McLENNAN Applicant
And
CENTRELINK
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Dr KS Levy, RFD, Senior Member Date4 May 2007
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal determines as follows:
(i) That the decision under review is affirmed;
(ii) That the confidentiality order made under section 64(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI) and s 35(2)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 in respect of the two documents previously determined as being wholly or partially releasable only to the applicant through a qualified professional, is now lifted. However, the respondent’s original condition of release on the basis of the power in s 41(3) of the FOI Act is to remain in force;
(iii) The confidentiality order in respect of the affidavit by Judy Moller dated 6 February 2007 (exhibit 5) is now removed. This order relates to the affidavit only and not to the attachments to that affidavit; and
(iv) The confidentiality order made in respect of the psychological test instruments which are included in Exhibit 5 is to remain extant and those instruments are not to be released. They should be returned intact (and in a sealed envelope) to Centrelink Psychological Services Branch, on publication of this decision;
(v) The Tribunal is satisfied that the documents either cannot be found or do not exist; and
(vi) There is no power under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for the Tribunal to order removal of records.
...............[SGD]...............................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – refusal of access to documents – whether documents exempt – whether disclosure of documents would be detrimental to applicant’s health or well-being – whether all reasonable steps were taken to find documents requested by the applicant – whether documents can be removed from a record or file – confidentiality of psychological tests and test results
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 29, 35, 37
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) ss 40, 41, 48, 50, 51, 51B, 64Attorney-General’s Department and Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180
Crawley and Centrelink [2006] AATA 572
Re Cox and Department of Defence (1990) 20 ALD 499
Searle and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2000] AATA 371REASONS FOR DECISION
4 May 2007 Dr KS Levy, RFD Senior Member Introduction
2. This is an application under s 29(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. It is an appeal from the decision of Centrelink to refuse access to the whole or part of certain documents held by that Agency with respect to the personal affairs of the applicant.
3. In June 2005, Mr McLennan sought access to all documents which made reference to his mental or physical health and to psychological reports. He also sought to have any such documents removed from official files.
4. The applicant originally submitted his application in June 2005. On 26 May 2006, he was advised he was granted access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (“the Act”) with the exception of three documents. Those documents could be released, but only through a medical practitioner, psychiatrist or psychologist of his choice. He nominated his general practitioner, Dr Connolly, who also refused to release the information to him.
5. He sought a further review on 2 August 2006. On 1 September 2006, the original decision was varied by an internal review officer of the Privacy and Information Access Section, Legal Services Branch, Centrelink. Of the three documents originally withheld, the internal reviewer determined that one document should be released in full, one document would be made partially available to him, while the decision was affirmed in relation to the third document. In other words, partial information was withheld in relation to one document and another document was to be completely withheld, with the information withheld in both of those documents being made available to the applicant only through a medical practitioner, psychiatrist or psychologist nominated by him. On 13 October 2006, the applicant appealed that decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
6. The applicant was self-represented. The respondent was represented by Mr Rick McQuinlan, Legal Services Branch, Centrelink.
Issues
7. The issues for determination by the Tribunal are:
(i)Whether the full disclosure of the reports requested by the applicant might be detrimental to the applicant’s physical or mental health, or well-being; and
(ii)Whether all reasonable steps have been taken to find documents requested by the applicant and if so, whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the documents either cannot be found or do not exist; and
(iii)Whether the Freedom of Information Act 1982 provides for the removal of documents from a record or file?
Legislation
8. The relevant legislative provisions in determining the issues in paragraph 7 and in respect of confidentiality orders sought are:
· Freedom of Information Act 1982
“Sect 40
Documents concerning certain operations of agencies
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to:
(a) prejudice the effectiveness of procedures or methods for the conduct of tests, examinations or audits by an agency;
(b)prejudice the attainment of the objects of particular tests, examinations or audits conducted or to be conducted by an agency;
(c)have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth or by an agency;
(d)have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency
…
Sect 41 - Documents affecting personal privacy
…
(3) Where:
(a)a request is made to an agency or Minister for access to a document of the agency, or an official document of the Minister, that contains information concerning the applicant, being information that was provided by a qualified person acting in his or her capacity as a qualified person; and
(b)it appears to the principal officer of the agency or to the Minister (as the case may be) that the disclosure of the information to the applicant might be detrimental to the applicant's physical or mental health, or well‑being;
the principal officer or Minister may, if access to the document would otherwise be given to the applicant, direct that access to the document, so far as it contains that information, is not to be given to the applicant but is to be given instead to a qualified person who:
(c)carries on the same occupation, of a kind mentioned in the definition of qualified person in subsection (8), as the first‑mentioned qualified person; and
(d)is to be nominated by the applicant.
Sect 64
Production of exempt documents
(1) Where there are proceedings before the Tribunal under this Act in relation to a document that is claimed to be an exempt document, section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 does not apply in relation to the document but the Tribunal, for the purpose of deciding whether the document is an exempt document, may require the document to be produced for inspection by members of the Tribunal only and if, upon the inspection, the Tribunal is satisfied that the document is an exempt document, the Tribunal shall return the document to the person by whom it was produced without permitting any person other than a member of the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of the proceeding, or a member of the staff of the Tribunal in the course of the performance of his or her duties as a member of that staff, to have access to the document or disclosing the contents of the document to any such person.
·Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Sect 35
Hearings to be in public except in special circumstances
…
Private hearing etc.
(2) Where 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, the Tribunal may, by order:
…
(c) give directions prohibiting or restricting the disclosure to some or all of the parties to a proceeding 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 proceeding.”
Evidence
9. The following documents were admitted into evidence:
· Exhibit 1 The “T” documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
·Exhibit 2 Psychological Assessment Report by John Newman dated 9 August 2005
·Exhibit 3 Capacity for Participation Assessment Report by John Newman dated 4 August 2005
·Exhibit 4 CSP referral report by Mr Gledson dated 1 September 1999
·Exhibit 5 Affidavit of Judy Moller sworn 6 February 2007, including psychological assessment tests
·Exhibit 6 Letter of Mr Ffrench dated 5 February 2007
·Exhibit 7 Request for document discovery by the applicant dated 11 January 2007
10. At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent’s advocate raised the issue of further documents being discovered on internal review by the internal reviewer of the Privacy and Information Access Section, Legal Services Branch, Centrelink. This is outlined in the Centrelink officer’s affidavit of 6 February 2007 (exhibit 5). The deponent states in that affidavit, that in the course of undertaking an internal review of the FOI records in anticipation of the hearing before this Tribunal, she contacted Mr John Newman, the relevant Centrelink Psychologist in Ipswich and sought information as to whether there were any further documents not evident on the Centrelink file. Mr Newman advised that there was a psychological file which contained sensitive and confidential information about the professional assessments of the applicant undertaken by himself and other psychologists in Centrelink. As a result, Mr Newman provided a copy of that file held by the Psychological Services branch of Centrelink, on 2 February 2007. The internal reviewer then determined that there may be three further documents which might fall within the scope of Mr McLennan’s application and which would be relevant to the present hearing. These documents are:
(i)“WAIS - III (Third Edition) test” (undated)
(ii)“PAI Critical Items” form (undated)
(iii)“PAI Form HS answer sheet” (undated)
11. The above documents comprise two (2) psychometric tests and were used for assessing the applicant’s capacity for work and/or entitlement to Disability Support Pension. Mr McQuinlan submitted that these documents should be subject to a confidentiality order.
12. The Tribunal examined the three documents concerned, which are attached to Exhibit 5. It is clear that these are standardised psychological tests and not only do they affect the personal affairs of the applicant, they are sensitive and confidential from a psychological professional point of view. Their release is subject to a code of ethics which applies to psychologists and is enforceable by the Australian Psychological Society, and conditions are imposed by test suppliers on professionals to whom these tests are sold. The Tribunal was satisfied that at least until all of the evidence had been heard, there appeared to be good reason why these documents should be subject to a confidentiality order under s 35(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The other two documents which had not been released to the applicant by the respondent under the provisions of s 41(3) of the Act, were also made subject to that order.
Mr McLennan
13. The applicant stated that he thought he was entitled to these documents and to determine otherwise would be tantamount to saying professionals were above the law. Specifically, he stated that he believed that John Gledson, a former psychologist at Centrelink (now retired) was biased against him. He stated that Mr Gledson had noted on his file that the applicant had “multiple chemical syndrome” and that those comments had prevented him from gaining employment over the years.
14. The applicant also stated that he believed Centrelink was corrupt. He stated that he had had an eye operation on his left eye. He also emphasised that he was not “totally mad”. He informed the Tribunal he was a native Australian but not an indigenous Australian. He believed that his Centrelink file was intended to prejudice him and that Centrelink was therefore corrupt.
15. Under cross-examination by Mr McQuinlan, the applicant confirmed that he had asked that the documents (which had been determined should be released to him only by a medical practitioner, psychiatrist or psychologist) be delivered to his General Practitioner, Dr Connolly. He stated Dr Connolly had treated him for five years or more. Even though he nominated Dr Connolly to be the professional person to consider this information and release it to him, he said Dr Connolly would not release the information. The applicant said Dr Connolly advised that he required the psychologist’s consent to do so. Dr Connolly said to him, that he did not want to be involved and would only release the information if he was directed to do so by a Court Order.
16. The applicant agreed that he got a letter from Centrelink dated 19 June 2006 from an FOI officer of Centrelink, which included a copy of a letter sent to Dr Connolly (T 10, folio 27). Another document was a request for document discovery made by the applicant (Exhibit 7) and was dated 11 January 2007. It refers to the applicant experiencing “first hand thirty-three years of systematic abuse because of the misrepresentations entered on my file by a Mr John Gledson. These misrepresentations were done without my knowledge and was hard to detect at first. Then I realised my file had been tampered with as a means to discredit and debilitate me … When I received a letter of demand to meet an appointment with the Centrelink psychologist … I was alarmed to hear my file contained data relating to my mental condition as so severe that I was a danger to myself and the community. The file was released to my physician and he informed me that if he had the legal power he would be required to impose a drug regime on me and have me institutionalised.” The applicant also suggested that a psychologist in Centrelink “has used his position to recruit local shadowy figures (men and women), police, officials, the influential and to access networks for use in achieving his desired outcomes”.
Mr John Newman
17. Mr Newman gave sworn evidence that he was a psychologist with Centrelink and had been so employed since October 2004. He was examined, in camera, following an application by the Respondent. However, the applicant was given an opportunity to cross-examine this witness.
18. Mr Newman described the purpose of the psychological tests. One was an intelligence test, and one was a personality test, which he used to test specifically for Attention Deficit Disorder. Mr Newman said that he believed that the contents of the documents were of a professional nature and were used for assessment of the applicant’s eligibility for Disability Support Pension. He remained of the view that the documents withheld (other than the psychometric tests) should, if released, be made available only through a qualified psychologist.
19. Mr Newman also stated that the psychometric tests used were prepared for the purposes of Social Security Law. He referred particularly to Exhibit 3 and it was noted that Mr Newman had recommended that the applicant be regarded as qualified for Disability Support Pension on the following basis:
(i)His condition had been treated and stabilised;
(ii)There was an inability to maintain full time work;
(iii)He did not believe the applicant would be fit to work for more than two years.
20. This witness also stated that in respect of the test of intellectual functioning, the applicant was not required to complete every sub-test. He stated that the results of these tests would have been discussed with the applicant but that they should not be released to persons who were not qualified to interpret such tests, as their validity in the future could be affected if they were not maintained confidentially. He told the Tribunal that such tests were only sold to registered psychologists. He emphasised that release of such material to unqualified persons could affect the future reliability and validity of psychological test instruments; and that psychologists were bound by a code of ethics in dealing with such tests.
21. Mr Newman was questioned by the Tribunal as to whether he had ever witnessed anything about the other psychologist (who previously worked in Centrelink) and about whom the applicant complained as being corrupt. The witness said he knew of no such evidence.
22. Under cross-examination by Mr McLennan, the witness advised that psychological files were kept in Ipswich and were kept separate from other Centrelink files relating to allowances and pension entitlements. He was asked by Mr McLennan whether the former psychologist, Mr Gledson, had a right of private practice also in addition to working with Centrelink. Mr Newman did not know. He stated however, that Mr Gledson was the only psychologist in the Commonwealth Employment Service for a very long time and was the head psychologist in Ipswich. The applicant put to Mr Newman that that would be a powerful position and if it was abused it could be detrimental to a person. Mr Newman said he could not comment on that proposal but said that could be the case if somebody acted unethically.
23. Mr McLennan then suggested that Mr Gledson was very corrupt. The respondent objected to the question. The Tribunal asked the applicant what evidence he had to support those assertions. The Tribunal also asked how Mr Newman, a relatively young and new psychologist to Centrelink, could have information that would assist in answering that question. The applicant agreed that it would probably be difficult for Mr Newman to provide such information and provided no further evidence to support his assertion.
24. Mr Newman told the applicant as sworn evidence in cross-examination about the extent of the advice and information he had previously provided to him at the conclusion of his psychological testing and interviewing. The applicant appeared to accept this evidence without further questioning.
Consideration
25. The Tribunal has taken into account all of the statutory and case law relevant to determining these issues, as well as all of the oral and documentary evidence available.
26. The following findings of fact are made:
(i)A number of psychological documents have been presented, two of which are of sensitivity to the applicant and the remaining three documents which are sensitive from a professional psychological point of view.
(ii)The psychometric assessment of the applicant indicates that caution should be exercised in releasing the reports about the applicant directly to himself and that they should be released to him through a medical practitioner, psychiatrist or psychologist.
(iii)Psychometric assessment testing instruments should be treated with extreme confidentiality and not released to the applicant or others who are not qualified to interpret the results.
(iv)In relation to allegations of corruption by the applicant, no evidence was presented to support this contention. In addition, psychologist Mr John Newman, provided evidence in camera which also does not support the applicant’s claim in that regard.
27. The three issues put to the Tribunal are answered below.
·Issue 1 – Would full disclosure of the report requested by the applicant be likely to be detrimental to his physical or mental health, or well-being?
28. Section 41(3) of the Act provides that where an applicant seeks access to a document of an Agency and where the principal officer of the Agency believes that disclosure of the documents concerned might be detrimental to the applicant’s physical or mental health, or well-being, then the principal officer may, if the document would otherwise be given to the applicant, release the document to a “qualified person” nominated by the applicant.
29. Access to such documents is also affected by s 40(1) of the FOI Act, subject to the provisions of s 40(2). A document will be an exempt document if its disclosure under the Act would, or could reasonably be expected to “prejudice the effectiveness” of procedures or methods for conducting such tests by an Agency and thereby, prejudice achievement of the objects of particular tests or examinations conducted, or to be conducted, by an Agency.
30. It is clear that the Act was intended to provide a right of access to documents relating to an individual’s personal affairs except in circumstances where there is evidence that the contents of those documents may have a detrimental effect on an applicant or other person who may get access to them. There is evidence in this case that indicates that these provisions should be relied upon based on the psychological assessment reports, as the contents of these reports may be stressful for the applicant and he should have appropriate psychological or medical support if and when this information is released to him. It is a matter of whether it is reasonable to expect (as opposed to whether it is irrational or absurd to expect) that one of the conclusions provided for in s 40(1) is likely to occur. (Attorney-General’s Department and Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180).
31. The respondent also argued that in respect of the psychological tests per se i.e. the test instruments covered by the confidentiality order (Exhibit 5), that these instruments should remain confidential as evidenced by the code of ethics of the Australian Psychological Society Ltd, as well as the conditions of sale of these instruments by test suppliers (Crawley and Centrelink [2006] AATA 572 per Deputy President PE Hack SC). Mr Newman urged similarly before the Tribunal. In addition, the Tribunal notes that the code of ethics of the Australian Psychological Society Ltd has general principles which have specific application. For the purposes of this case, the following is relevant:
“(iii) Propriety
The welfare of clients and the public, and the integrity of the profession, shall take precedence over a member’s self interest and over the interests of the member’s employer and colleagues.”
32. Also, section A appended to that code deals with “Psychological Assessment Procedures”. Relevantly, paragraph 6 provides:
“Members must not compromise the effective use of psychological tests, nor render them open to misuse, by publishing or otherwise disclosing their contents to persons unauthorised or unqualified to receive such information.”
33. The Australian Psychological Society Ltd has, in addition, issued “Guidelines for the use of psychological tests”. In s 2 of those guidelines, provision is made about “The Use of Tests”. The following extracts from that section are also relevant.
“2.3 Security of Tests
…
Policies for storage and access should be such as not to compromise the ethical purposes of testing, in particular the introduction of error into scores and their interpretation.
……
2.4 Confidentiality and Release of Test Results
It is the ethical responsibility of the psychologist to indicate to those tested the limits on confidentiality which exist in the testing situation. Access to psychological test protocols should at all times be controlled by a psychologist. …..
…
In a Government facility, the release of test results may be sought under Freedom of Information legislation …Test documents may be deemed exempt documents on the grounds that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest, where:
· disclosure would invalidate the utility of the test or tests in the practice of psychology
· disclosure would impair the ability of psychologists to perform their duties properly
· disclosure would constitute a breach of the contractual arrangements under which psychologists are supplied with test materials.”
34. The Tribunal is satisfied that the two documents previously determined by the respondent as being releasable only to the applicant through a qualified professional, is a sound decision. A qualified professional is defined in s 41(8) of the Act and the test results could therefore be released to a medical practitioner, psychiatrist or psychologist. Mr Newman suggested that it might be preferable that Mr McLennan have the contents of the relevant reports released to him in the presence of a psychologist who is trained in psychological testing and understands both the interpretation and the likely impact that it may have on him.
35. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the documents previously determined by the respondent as being releasable through a qualified professional should not continue to be subject to the confidentiality order determined at the hearing. However, in accordance with the reasoning provided by Mr Newman and supported by the professional guidance material and the code of ethics of the Australian Psychological Society Limited, the psychometric instruments in Exhibit 5 should continue to be subject to a confidentiality order and those documents should not be released to the applicant. They should be returned intact (in a sealed envelope) to Centrelink Psychological Services Branch on publication of this decision.
· Issue 2 – Have all reasonable steps been taken by the respondent to find documents requested by the applicant and if so, whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the documents either cannot be found or do not exist?
36. The respondent submitted that the original request of the applicant was quite narrow and related only to documents created by psychologist Mr Newman or Mr Gledson, and which were of a particular character.
37. Subsequently, the internal review officer made subsequent enquiries and found the psychological test instruments. Mr Newman provided evidence that Centrelink’s ordinary files contained certain information about applicants but because of the confidential nature of psychological testing and reports, these are held in a separate filing system maintained by psychologists within Centrelink. These were discovered more recently by the Internal Review Officer.
38. I would have thought that given the original request related to documents created by psychologists, the recently discovered documents could have been expected to be discovered earlier given requests under that Act must have been relatively common for the respondent for over 20 years since the FOI Act was enacted. Nevertheless, the Tribunal is satisfied that there was no evidence of corrupt behaviour or reason to believe that the failure to find the test instruments in the first instance was due to corruption. Equally, there is no evidence to suggest that there are any other documents in existence within Centrelink that fall within the scope of the applicant’s request. Indeed, it appears that there was a sufficient independent search and that all likely sources within such a system would have been discovered. The Tribunal was also impressed with Mr Newman’s frankness and professionalism in answering questions before the Tribunal of the respondent and indeed, questions put by the applicant in cross-examination and of the Tribunal itself.
39. In the circumstances therefore, based on this material, together with the reasoning in reliance on material discussed in Issue 1 about the conditions of supply of psychological tests to professionals, as well as the guidelines issued by the Australian Psychological Society, the Tribunal determines that all existing documents must be taken to have been found, and any such documents should only be released as determined under Issue 1 above. If any other documents exist or existed, the Tribunal is satisfied that they cannot be found.
· Issue 3 – Does the Freedom of Information Act 1982 provide for the removal of documents from a record or file?
40. The respondent submits that there is no capacity for removal of documents under the Act.
41. Section 48 of the Act provides:
Application for amendment or annotation of personal records
Where a person claims that a document of an agency or an official document of a Minister to which access has been lawfully provided to the person, whether under this Act or otherwise, contains personal information about that person:
(a) that is incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading; and
(b) that has been used, is being used or is available for use by the agency or Minister for an administrative purpose;
the person may apply to the agency or Minister for:
(c) an amendment; or
(d) an annotation;
of the record of that information kept by the agency or Minister.
42. That section provides for a person who has had access provided to him or her of certain official documents to apply for amendment if he or she believes they are inaccurate in some respect i.e. incomplete, incorrect or misleading. Mr McLennan has been provided access to some documents. He also asserts there is other incorrect (even corrupt) information on his record. The applicant himself may apply for amendment or annotation of the official records where he has been lawfully been provided a copy of documents. It is then at the discretion of the Department or agency to amend or not under section 50 or 51 or 51B. The Tribunal cannot order such rectification, even if the applicant is correct in his belief about the state of those records. This was set out by Deputy President Todd in Re Cox and Department of Defence (1990) 20 ALD 499 who agreed with a submission that the official record, even if incorrect, is not incorrect information but a record of incorrect information. It was held to be a correct record of incorrect information. It was held there that if professional advice must be given in a particular case, access to all previous reports would be necessary. Similar circumstances can be seen to be present here. This position has not been altered in subsequent cases (see Searle and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2000] AATA 371 and Crawley and Centrelink [2006] AATA 572).
43. Of the material dealt with by the Tribunal, there is no specific power authorising the removal of any documents from the official Government records under the Act. The ultimate destruction of any official Government records would be governed by the provisions and policies of the Commonwealth Archives and/or, in relation to psychological test instruments and/or reports, by policies determined by the Department in conjunction with relevant professional psychologists. The Australian Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics provides some guidance to psychologists in this regard also.
44. In any event, the answer to this issue is that there is no power under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to accede the applicant’s request.
Conclusion
45. In light of the above determinations, the Tribunal determines as follows:
(i)That the decision under review is affirmed;
(ii)That the confidentiality order made under section 64(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and s 35(2)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 in respect of the two documents previously determined as being wholly or partially releasable only to the applicant through a qualified professional, is now lifted. However, the respondent’s original condition of release on the basis of the power in s 41(3) of the FOI Act is to remain in force; and
(iii)The confidentiality order in respect of the affidavit by Judy Moller dated 6 February 2007 (exhibit 5) is now removed. This order relates to the affidavit only and not to the attachments to that affidavit; and
(iv)The confidentiality order made in respect of psychological test instruments which are included in Exhibit 5 is to remain extant and those instruments are not to be released. They should be returned intact (and in a sealed envelope) to Centrelink Psychological Services Branch, on publication of this decision;
(v)The Tribunal is satisfied that the documents either cannot be found or do not exist; and
(vi)There is no power under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for the Tribunal to order removal of records.
I certify that the 45 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr KS Levy, RFD Senior Member.
Signed: .....................................................................................
Legal Research OfficerDate/s of Hearing 21 February 2007
Date of Decision 4 May 2007
The Applicant was self represented
For the Respondent Mr R McQuinlan, Departmental Advocate
3
0