Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Pemberton v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 109 Hearing dates: 28 March 2022 Date of orders: 01 April 2022 Decision date: 01 April 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Naida Isenberg, Senior Member Decision: (1) Pursuant to s 49 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CAT Act), the hearing of the substantive application be conducted, insofar as it relates to the Confidential Documents or Confidential Evidence, in the absence of the Applicant, any legal representative for the Applicant in the substantive proceedings, and the public (Private Hearing).
(2) Pursuant to s 59 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act), the Respondent (the Commissioner) not be required to lodge copies of the documents (theConfidential Documents) specified in the Confidential Statement in support of the application and provided to the Tribunal by the Commissioner (the Confidential Statement).
(3) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the CAT Act, the publication of:
(a) any evidence given during the Private Hearing,
(b) the Confidential Documents and the Confidential Statement and
(c) matters contained in the Confidential Documents and the Confidential Statement, is prohibited.
(4) Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the disclosure of:
(a) any evidence given during the Private Hearing,
(b) the Confidential Documents and the Confidential Statement and
(c) matters contained in the Confidential Documents and the Confidential Statement is restricted to the Commissioner, the legal representatives for the Commissioner and the Tribunal.
(5) Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b) and 64(1)(c) of the CAT Act, the publication and reporting of the Private Hearing of this application, including any oral evidence given during the Private Hearing, is prohibited.
Catchwords: LICENSING – firearms - confidentiality
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Firearms Act 1996
Cases Cited: Appellant S214 of 2004 v The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 66
Bettington v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 303
Brennan v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 167
Bungree Aboriginal Association Limited v NSW Registrar of Community Housing [2019] NSWCATAD 61
Cain v Glass (No 2) (1985) 3 NSWLR 230, at 247-248
Fisher v NSW Police [2002] NSWADT 267
Grant v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 158
Ibrahim v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 41
McCausland v State of NSW [2010] NSWSC 1562
Pendrick v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAD 27
Sankey v Whitlam [1978] HCA 43; (1978) 142 CLR 1
Simring v Commissioner of Police [2009] NSWSC 270
State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and anor v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Raymond Pemberton (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant self-represented
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/335452 Publication restriction: In addition to the Orders set out above, pursuant to ss 64(1)(c) and (d) of the CAT Act, the transcript and recording of the…
Continue reading Pemberton v Commissioner of Police
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pemberton v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 109
- Case
- [2022] NSWCATAD 109
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether certain documents and evidence should be considered confidential and, if so, what measures should be taken to protect their confidentiality. This involved an analysis of the relevant statutory provisions, such as sections 49, 59, and 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, as well as the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997. The court was tasked with balancing the applicant's right to a fair hearing with the need to protect sensitive information that could potentially compromise public safety or ongoing investigations.
The court found that the documents and evidence in question were indeed confidential and warranted protection under the relevant statutes. It determined that a private hearing was necessary to safeguard the confidentiality of the information, and that the disclosure of such information should be strictly limited to the parties involved and their legal representatives. The court also ruled that the publication and reporting of the hearing should be prohibited to prevent the unauthorised dissemination of confidential material. The orders reflect these findings, mandating a private hearing, restricting access to the confidential documents, and prohibiting their publication or reporting.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Pursuant to s 49 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CAT Act), the hearing of the substantive application be conducted, insofar as it relates to the Confidential Documents or Confidential Evidence, in the absence of the Applicant, any legal representative for the Applicant in the substantive proceedings, and the public (Private Hearing).
(2) Pursuant to s 59 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act), the Respondent (the Commissioner) not be required to lodge copies of the documents (the Confidential Documents) specified in the Confidential Statement in support of the application and provided to the Tribunal by the Commissioner (the Confidential Statement).
(3) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the CAT Act, the publication of:
(a) any evidence given during the Private Hearing,
(b) the Confidential Documents and the Confidential Statement and
(c) matters contained in the Confidential Documents and the Confidential Statement, is prohibited.
(4) Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the disclosure of:
(a) any evidence given during the Private Hearing,
(b) the Confidential Documents and the Confidential Statement and
(c) matters contained in the Confidential Documents and the Confidential Statement is restricted to the Commissioner, the legal representatives for the Commissioner and the Tribunal.
(5) Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b) and 64(1)(c) of the CAT Act, the publication and reporting of the Private Hearing of this application, including any oral evidence given during the Private Hearing, is prohibited.
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.