Singh and Commonwealth Ombudsman (Freedom of information)

This matter concerned an application made by the Applicant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for the issue of summonses for two individuals, GP and KH, to give evidence. GP was the delegate of the Commonwealth Ombudsman who made the original decisions to refuse access to documents under the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* (Cth). KH had conducted the internal review of GP's decision. The Applicant sought their attendance as witnesses, arguing that they possessed direct knowledge relevant to the review of the Ombudsman's decisions, and that the Respondent's refusal to produce them indicated a deliberate attempt to prevent their evidence from being heard.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it should exercise its power under section 40A of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) to issue summonses compelling the attendance of GP and KH as witnesses. This required the Tribunal to consider the relevance of the proposed witnesses' evidence to its task of reviewing the Ombudsman's decisions and whether issuing the summonses was in the interests of justice. The Applicant contended that the Respondent's nominated witness, LC, lacked direct knowledge of the issues, whereas GP, as the original decision-maker, and KH, as the internal reviewer, possessed firsthand knowledge crucial for the proceedings.

The Tribunal, in considering the application, noted that while it possessed the power to summon witnesses, it also had the discretion to refuse such requests. The Applicant's stated reasons for requiring GP and KH to attend were that they were the primary decision-maker and internal reviewer, respectively, and therefore had direct knowledge of the matters under review. The Tribunal was asked to determine if the evidence of these individuals was relevant to its review function and if their attendance was necessary for a just and fair determination of the case, particularly in light of the Respondent's assertion that their nominated witness was sufficient.