Ragless v Stokes - [2015] SAEOT 1

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TRIBUNAL
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
RAGLESS v STOKES
[2015] SAEOT 1
Judgment of His Honour Judge Costello
12 March 2015
HUMAN RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION
Proceedings instituted pursuant to Whistleblowers Protection Act (WPA) and Equal Opportunity Act claiming victimisation by the respondent – complainant alleging victimisation consequent upon his appropriate disclosure of public interest information – disclosure concerned details of an incident at complainant’s shooting club between himself and the Secretary of his club – respondent was the club's Assistant Secretary – complainant's report of the details of the incident did not constitute an appropriate disclosure of public interest information within the meaning of the WPA – Complaint otherwise within time and arguably disclosing possible acts of victimisation by the respondent - application by respondent for dismissal of the Complaint.
HELD: Complaint dismissed.
Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993 (SA) s 4, s 5, s 9 ; Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) s 93, s 95, s 96 , referred to.
Stokes v Ragless [2014] SASC 56; Rodgers v Revenue SA, Department of Treasury and Finance (State of South Australia) [2014] SASCFC 2, considered.

RAGLESS v STOKES
[2015] SAEOT 1
Introduction

In these proceedings the respondent has applied for an order dismissing the Complaint. In the alternative he seeks an order striking out the Complaint. He makes his application upon two bases, namely that:
· It is lacking in substance; and
· It is out of time.
Background to the Complaint
In his Complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission, the complainant asserted that he had been victimised by the respondent because he had made an ‘appropriate disclosure of public interest information’ within the meaning of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993 (SA) (‘the WPA’).
The WPA
Section 5 relevantly provides:
5—Immunity for appropriate disclosures of public interest information
(1)    A person who makes an appropriate disclosure of public interest information incurs no civil or criminal liability by doing so...
(2)    A person makes an appropriate disclosure of public interest information for the purposes of this Act if, and only if—
(a)the person—
(i)   believes on reasonable grounds that the information is true; or
(ii) is not in a position to form a belief on reasonable grounds about the truth of the information but believes on reasonable grounds that the information may be true and is of sufficient significance to justify its disclosure so that its truth may be investigated; and
(b)the disclosure is made to a person to whom it is, in the circumstances of the case, reasonable and appropriate to make the disclosure.
(3) A disclosure is taken to have been made to a person to whom it is, in the circumstances of the case, reasonable and appropriate to make the disclosure if it is made to an appropriate authority (but this is not intended to suggest that an appropriate authority is the only person to whom a disclosure of public interest information may be reasonably and appropriately made).
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a…

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 Ragless v Stokes

Details

AGLC: Ragless v Stokes [2015] SAEOT 1
Case: [2015] SAEOT 1
Decision Date: 12 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ragless v Stokes involved a dispute initiated under the Whistleblowers Protection Act and the Equal Opportunity Act. The complainant, Ragless, alleged that he was victimised by Stokes, the respondent, following the disclosure of information deemed to be of public interest. The incident in question arose at Ragless’s shooting club, where a confrontation occurred between Ragless and the club’s Secretary, with Stokes, the Assistant Secretary, present. Ragless’s report of the incident was contested as not constituting an appropriate disclosure under the WPA, yet the complaint was within the time limit and potentially disclosed acts of victimisation by Stokes. Stokes sought dismissal of the complaint.

The court was required to determine whether Ragless’s report was an appropriate disclosure under the WPA and, if not, whether the complaint was valid under the Equal Opportunity Act for acts of victimisation. The central issue was whether the disclosure, regardless of its classification under the WPA, could still be protected under the Equal Opportunity Act. This required a nuanced interpretation of both statutes and their interplay, particularly in relation to the definition and scope of "appropriate disclosure" and "victimisation".

In ruling, the court found that while Ragless’s report did not meet the criteria for an appropriate disclosure under the WPA, the complaint could still be considered under the Equal Opportunity Act. The court acknowledged that even if the disclosure did not fit the precise definition of the WPA, it did not preclude the possibility of victimisation. The court determined that the complaint was within the time limits and that there were arguable grounds for victimisation. Consequently, the court denied Stokes’s application for dismissal.

The court ordered that the complaint proceed under the Equal Opportunity Act, allowing the complainant to pursue claims of victimisation. The ruling underscored the importance of distinguishing between the different protections offered by the WPA and the Equal Opportunity Act, while also highlighting the potential for overlapping claims. The court’s decision ensured that the complainant could seek redress for alleged victimisation, despite the initial mischaracterisation of the disclosure.

Orders