Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Turner v NSW Forensic & Analytical Science Service [2017] NSWCATAD 181 Hearing dates: On papers after 18 May 2017 Date of orders: 14 June 2017 Decision date: 14 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Hennessy LCM, Deputy President Decision: 1. The Tribunal declines to exercise any power under s 199 of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW).
2. The Tribunal declines to refer any allegations of contempt to the Supreme Court.Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – contempt –principles to be applied under s 73 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 – allegations included incorrect Tribunal file numbers being used, the Respondent being named in several different ways and the use of hand written receipt numbers on an annexure to an affidavit Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 33, s 36, s 38, s 50(2), s 73
Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000, s 93
Crimes Act 1900, s 316(1), s 317
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 199
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW), ss 53, 71 ,112, and 120Cases Cited: Avery v Registrar Births Deaths and Marriages [2014] NSWCATAP 19
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34
Daintree Cafe Pty Ltd v Jacfun Pty Ltd [2002] NSWADT 188
Donoghoe v Compass Housing Services [2015] NSWCATAP 97
European Asian Bank AG v Wentworth (1986) 5 NSWLR 445
Fraser v R [1984] 3 NSWLR 212
In the matter of Bauskis [2006] NSWSC 908
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae [1955] HCAT 12
Keeley v Brooking (1979) 143 CLR 162
Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal [1999] HCA 19
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Hall [2008] NSWSC 994
Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam (No 1) (1991) 25 NSWLR 459
Registrar, Court of Appeal v Collins [1982] 1 NSWLR 682
Sasterawan v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWCATOD 142
Smith v The Queen (1991) 25 NSWLR 1
The Queen v Witt [2016] VSC 19
Turner v NSW Health Pathology, Forensic & Analytical Science Service [2017] NSWCATAD 114
Turner v R [2015] NSWCCA 322 (18 December 2015).
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Donovan Turner (Applicant)
NSW Forensic & Analytical Science Service (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (self-represented)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/00377934 Publication restriction: Nil
reasons for decision
Overview
-
Mr Turner has made allegations that the Respondent’s representatives and witnesses are guilty of contempt. I have decided not to exercise any power under s 199 of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) or to refer any allegation of contempt to the Supreme Court.
Background
-
Mr Turner applied under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act) for access to certain information. By the time of the hearing the request had been narrowed to:
“All evidence analysis, reports, records, receipts, station exhibit numbers, and forensic examination and personal DNA request forms held by FASS from…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Turner v NSW Forensic & Analytical Science Service 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] NSWCATAD 181
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the appropriate principles to be applied in assessing whether FAS's conduct amounted to contempt. The Tribunal considered the nature of the alleged procedural errors, whether they were wilful, and the impact of these errors on the proceedings. Additionally, the Tribunal had to weigh the principles of fairness and procedural integrity in the administration of justice against the potential consequences of finding FAS in contempt.
In its decision, the Tribunal concluded that while the procedural errors were significant, they did not warrant a finding of contempt. The Tribunal found that the errors were not wilful but rather appeared to be administrative oversights. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasised that the procedural errors did not prejudice the outcome of the case or undermine the integrity of the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal decided not to exercise any power under section 199 of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) or to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for further action.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Tribunal declines to exercise any power under s 199 of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW).
2. The Tribunal declines to refer any allegations of contempt to the Supreme Court.
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.