Robinson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police (GD)

[2007] NSWADTAP 24

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION:	Robinson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police (GD) [2007] NSWADTAP 24
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Arthur Robinson RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police
FILE NUMBER:	069079
HEARING DATES:	21 March 2007
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	21 March 2007
DATE OF DECISION:	3 May 2007
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Fitzgerald K - Judicial Member; Bolt M - Non Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Freedom of Information - sufficiency of search
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	063002
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	11/27/2006
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Freedom of Information Act 1989
CASES CITED:	Robinson v Commissioner of Police [2006] NSWADT 333 Robinson v Commissioner of Police [2003] NSWADT 245 Cianfrano v Director General, Department of Commerce and anor (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT In person RESPONDENT W Pisani, agent
ORDERS:	Appeal dismissed

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 This appeal has as its background an application for access to documents made on 17 October 2005 by the appellant, Mr Robinson, to the Commissioner of Police. He sought access to documents relating to an incident that had occurred on 9 April 1996, another incident in 2000 and, more generally, documents relating to any investigation of him and anything else relating to him. The terms of the request are set out in the decision under appeal: see Robinson v Commissioner of Police [2006] NSWADT 333.

2 By determination dated 17 November 2005 the Commissioner gave Mr Robinson access to some of the documents held by the Commissioner covered by the terms of the request. He did not provide copies of other documents covered by the request because they had already been provided in response to previous similar requests. One of the earlier similar requests is the subject of a determination made by the Tribunal in 2003: see Robinson v Commissioner of Police [2003] NSWADT 245.

3 On 24 November 2005 Mr Robinson applied for internal review of the latest determination. The Commissioner did not respond. As he was entitled to do, he then applied to the Tribunal for review. Following a hearing in August, the Tribunal issued its decision on 27 November 2006.

4 Mr Robinson objected that not all documents held by the agency and covered by his request had been provided. In line with the jurisprudence in the Tribunal relating to sufficiency of search (see, for example, Cianfrano v Director General, Department of Commerce and anor (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195) the Tribunal heard evidence on this matter. It was satisfied that the Commissioner had responded in full to the request. It affirmed the decision. (Strictly speaking, the Tribunal’s conclusion should have been expressed as that it lacked jurisdiction, as a full disclosure of all relevant documents does not give rise to a decision that attracts the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal: see Freedom of Information Act 1989, s 25 for the list of reviewable decisions.)

5 Mr Robinson is a litigant in person. On appeal he has basically repeated his view that the Commissioner’s response was inadequate as it did not identify all relevant documents. An appeal may be made as of right on a question of law, and with the leave of the Appeal Panel the appeal may be extended to the merits: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act), ss 112, 113. In this instance Mr Robinson raised no question of law.

6 Mr Robinson’s notice of appeal is difficult to understand. Consistent with the Tribunal’s account of his concerns (see especially para [7] of its reasons), at the Appeal Panel’s hearing on 21 March 2007, the appellant said that:

1. He was visited by Sutherland Police on 5 April 2000 and wanted a copy of a letter sent by him to the then Commissioner, Commissioner Ryan, about the visit.

2. He made a complaint about an incident at Governor Macquarie Tower and was told that this had been lost.

3. He believed he did not get all the documents he asked for under FOI.

4. He wanted Wayne Kosh of the Ombudsman’s office to investigate his case. He was not happy with the office’s investigation of his concerns about the adequacy of the agency’s response undertaken by another officer of the Ombudsman, David Watson.

7 In response Mr Pisani for the Commissioner submitted:
1. There is a letter in the Tribunal papers from Sutherland Police dated 8 May 2000 about a police visit to Mr Robinson on 5 April 2000.

2. Mr Robinson had been provided with a copy of a report (with deletions) about the Governor Macquarie Tower matter – see Sgt Stuart’s affidavit, annexure E, in evidence before the Tribunal below.

3. There was no error of law in the original Tribunal finding that there had been an adequate search for documents not already provided to Mr Robinson. Sgt Stuart had provided an affidavit as to the exhaustive searches undertaken.

4. Nothing in the appeal warrants an extension to the merits (see ADT Act, s 113) or a referral for further investigation by the Ombudsman (see ADT Act, s 39).

8 We think that it is best in the circumstances to deal with Mr Robinson’s merits appeal. The Appeal Panel has examined the material that was before the Tribunal on this occasion, as well as the decision in this case and the one made in 2003.

9 There is a long history of requests and complaints from Mr Robinson. He will, we expect, remain dissatisfied after this decision.

10 Our review of the files shows that the visit that occurred on 5 April 2000 was undertaken by a local senior officer in the Sutherland area. It was responding to a letter of complaint Mr Robinson had written to the Commissioner. We will not set out the letter’s subject matter, as revealed by the papers on the Tribunal file, here. There was nothing in the material before the Tribunal to suggest that there was any further letter written to Commissioner Ryan.

11 Mr Robinson did make a complaint about police action affecting him at the Governor Macquarie Tower (the headquarters of State government administration, which includes several Ministers’ offices, including the Premier) that occurred on 15 August 2002. It is referred to in correspondence in the Tribunal file between Mr Robinson and the Police Service dated 4 February 2003.

12 Mr Robinson has lodged several requests going to these matters in recent years, including a complaint to the Ombudsman.

13 In our view the Tribunal’s reasons for dismissing Mr Robinson’s objection are unassailable. The Commissioner’s FOI officers co-operated fully with the Tribunal’s directions. They put on persuasive evidence going to the sufficiency of search issue. The Tribunal reached the only reasonable decision open to it on the evidence.

14 In our view the appeal must be dismissed.