NZ v Attorney-General's Department

CITATION:	NZ v Attorney General's Department [2005] NSWADT 103
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT NZ RESPONDENT Attorney General's Department
FILE NUMBER:	043380
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	04/05/2005
DATE OF DECISION:	05/10/2005
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President)
APPLICATION:	Jurisdiction
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Coroners Act 1980 Freedom of Information Act 1989 Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act 1998
CASES CITED:	N (No 2) v Director General, Attorney General’s Department [2002] NSWADT 33 Our Town FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1987) 16 FCR 465 Tooheys Ltd v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) (1961) 105 CLR 602
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT S Free, solicitor
ORDERS:	Application for review dismissed, for want of jurisdiction

1 This application arises under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (the Privacy Act). The applicant complains that the Privacy Act was contravened in various ways by the Local Court at Waverley in 2003 and 2004. During that period the applicant and some other members of her family (in particular a sister, X) had made applications to the apprehended violence orders (AVO) against each other. The various applications were heard and determined by a Magistrate.

2 The complaint questions the conduct of Registry officers in granting access to documents relating to her held on the Court files.

3 An illustration of the applicant’s concerns is provided by another Tribunal decision, relating to a complaint made by her against the Department of Housing. The case dealt with a letter sent to the applicant’s sister by an officer of the Department of Housing. The contents of the letter might be interpreted as involving a negative conclusion as to whether the applicant was the source of letters making false allegations against her sister: see NZ v Director General, New South Wales Department of Housing [2005] NSWADT 58. This letter found its way onto the Court file. In the course of these proceedings the applicant expressed great concern that this letter may have been read by the Magistrate who dealt with the AVO proceedings; and may have been taken into account in reaching the decision to issue an order against the applicant.

4 The applicant had a number of other objections to the extent to which the contents of Court files had been made available to other parties to the proceedings.

5 For administrative purposes, Local Courts form part of the Attorney General’s Department. Consequently, the Department has responded to the complaint. It has conducted an internal review. The Department is a public sector agency bound by the Privacy Act. There is no dispute that the documents released contained personal information about the applicant. The Department has objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in light of the findings of its internal review that the conduct in issue related entirely to the management of the files held at the Court for the purpose of the exercise of its judicial functions. While the Privacy Act is generally…