Richards v Clarence Valley Council - [2009] NSWADT 243

CITATION: Richards v Clarence Valley Council [2009] NSWADT 243

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Andrew John Richards
RESPONDENT
Clarence Valley Council

FILE NUMBER: 083299

HEARING DATES: 15 May 2009 and 7 August 2009

DATE OF DECISION:
22 September 2009

BEFORE: Molony P - Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Freedom of Information Act - Access to documents - internal working documents

LEGISLATION CITED: Freedom of Information Act 1989 Companion Animals Act 1988

CASES CITED: Bennett v University of New England [2000] NSWADT 8
Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1983) 78 FLR 236
Hutchinson v Warrumbungle Shire Council [2009] NSWADT 187
IPART v Services Sydney Pty Ltd (GD) [2008] NSWADTAP 79
Kerr v Roads & Traffic Authority (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 310
McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury (2006) 228 CLR 423
O'Sullivan v Victoria Police [2005] VCAT 532
Schelbaum (No 3) v Director General, Department of Community Services [2002] NSWADT 128
Van de Wall v University of Sydney [2008] NSWADT 213
General Manager, WorkCover Authority of NSW v Law Society of NSW [2006] NSWCA 84

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
P Salem, solicitor

ORDERS: The matter is remitted to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 On 2 July 2007 rangers from the Clarence Valley Council, in the company of a local police officer and an officer of the RSPCA, entered a property owned by Mr Richards in pursuit of a number of Pit Bull dogs owned by him. They purported to do so, without a warrant, under powers contained in s 69A of the Companion Animals Act 1988, over his objections. Mr Richards told them that all of his dogs were dead and pointed to what he said were a number of graves. They required him, under s 69B, to open the graves so that they could verify, by scanning the dog’s micro-chips, that the remains were those of his animals. He had opened one grave when, as a result of information received, the focus of their search switched from Mr Richard’s property to one of owned by a friend of his.

2 At the friend’s property Mr Richard’s dogs were found. They were seized and subsequently destroyed.

3 In the period since then Mr Richards has had substantial contact with officers of the Council, in his pursuit of justice for himself and his animals. The Council says that this was at times abusive and threatening, and caused its officers to become concerned as to their and their families welfare. The Council also says that its officers have been threatened by Mr Richards and his friend.

4 On 15 July 2008 Mr Richards made application to the Council under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 for access to information relating to is interactions with the Council concerning his dogs and the events leading up to and surrounding that entry and search, and subsequently.

5 On 30 July 2008 the Council general manager wrote to Mr Richards advising that in the light of this ‘abusive,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Richards v Clarence Valley Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] NSWADT 243
Decision Date: 22 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the plaintiff, Richards, who sought access to certain documents held by the Clarence Valley Council under the Freedom of Information Act. The Council had refused to provide the documents, citing exemptions available under the Act. Richards challenged this decision in court, arguing that the documents should be disclosed as they were not subject to the claimed exemptions.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the documents in question were exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the documents constituted internal working documents, which, if they did, would be exempt from disclosure if they related to decision-making processes. The Council argued that the documents were internal working documents, while Richards contended that they were not exempt and should be disclosed.

The court examined the nature of the documents and the context in which they were created and used. It found that while some of the documents could be considered internal working documents, not all of them necessarily qualified for exemption. The court highlighted that the exemptions under the Act should be applied narrowly, and the burden of proving exemption was on the Council. After careful consideration, the court determined that the Council's refusal to disclose the documents was not justified under the Act and that the matter needed to be reconsidered with a proper application of the law.

The court remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The Council was directed to review the documents again, ensuring that any exemptions applied were both appropriate and justified under the Freedom of Information Act. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the principles of transparency and accountability in the application of freedom of information laws.

Orders

Orders of the court

The matter is remitted to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.

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.

CITATION:	Richards v Clarence Valley Council [2009] NSWADT 243
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Andrew John Richards RESPONDENT Clarence Valley Council
FILE NUMBER:	083299
HEARING DATES:	15 May 2009 and 7 August 2009
DATE OF DECISION:	22 September 2009
BEFORE:	Molony P - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Freedom of Information Act - Access to documents - internal working documents
LEGISLATION CITED:	Freedom of Information Act 1989 Companion Animals Act 1988
CASES CITED:	Bennett v University of New England [2000] NSWADT 8 Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1983) 78 FLR 236 Hutchinson v Warrumbungle Shire Council [2009] NSWADT 187 IPART v Services Sydney Pty Ltd (GD) [2008] NSWADTAP 79 Kerr v Roads & Traffic Authority (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 310 McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury (2006) 228 CLR 423 O'Sullivan v Victoria Police [2005] VCAT 532 Schelbaum (No 3) v Director General, Department of Community Services [2002] NSWADT 128 Van de Wall v University of Sydney [2008] NSWADT 213 General Manager, WorkCover Authority of NSW v Law Society of NSW [2006] NSWCA 84
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT P Salem, solicitor
ORDERS:	The matter is remitted to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.