Versace v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service

[2000] NSWADT 66

CITATION:	Versace -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 66
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Antonietta Versace RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service
FILE NUMBER:	991117
HEARING DATES:	24/05/2000
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	05/24/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	05/24/2000
BEFORE:	Bartley R - Judicial Member; Nemeth de Bikal L - Member; Antonios Z - Member
APPLICATION:	Dismissal of complaint - frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Application under section 111(1)
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT J Clarke, barrister
ORDERS:	1. Application under section 111(1) upheld.; 2. No order as to costs.

1 On 16 August 1999 Antonietta Versace (The Applicant) lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board against the NSW Police Service. (The Respondent)

2 The matter came before the Tribunal on this date on a notice of motion by the Respondent for the proceedings to be dismissed under section 111(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act.

3 The Applicant was unrepresented and needed the services of an Italian interpreter.

4 In the view of the Tribunal there needed to be a basis on which the motion could be considered and the Tribunal rejected an application by the Respondent that the matter be heard on various documents. The Tribunal was not prepared, in the circumstances of an unrepresented Applicant, to proceed unless she had an opportunity to present her case.

5 The Applicant gave evidence on oath and various documents were tendered by her. All the documents were read to her by the Interpreter and she told the Tribunal she understood them.

6 It emerged from the evidence that the main complaint of the Applicant was the fact that the police did not take action when she complained of a breach of two Apprehended Violence Orders she had against her neighbours.

7 The evidence disclosed that the police did take action to investigate the matter but, after interviewing the Applicant and her neighbours, did not accept the fact that they were able to take action for the alleged breach.

8 The Applicant did not relate this to any ground under the Anti-Discrimination Act. Whilst the complaint was said to be based on discrimination against her because of her age (72 years), there was no evidence of this.

9 The complaint was also said to be based on a disability but again there was no evidence of this fact.

10 The Applicant at one stage said she had arthritis, and made several references to poor health, but there was no evidence this played any part in the actions of the police.

11 It appears to the Tribunal that the Applicant and her neighbours do not get along with each other. However on the evidence the Police, in investigating the matters raised by the Applicant, had not discriminated against her but treated the matters as one in the ordinary course of their investigation.

12 There were no witnesses for the Applicant present at the Tribunal.

13 Mr. Clarke then renewed his application for the complaint to be dismissed under section 111(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act.

14 The submission had already been filed and Mr. Clarke was not asked to speak to his submission.

15 It appears to the Tribunal at this stage of the inquiry that the complaint was misconceived. The Applicant decided to approach the Anti-Discrimination Board having seen a news report on TV regarding a school discriminating against a young girl with a disability.

16 It appears to the Tribunal she was unaware of the basis of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal that a complaint to be successful had to be based on one of the grounds provided for in the Act. The Tribunal is of the view that the complaint as lodged was misconceived and should not be entertained.

17 The application under section 111(1) upheld. No order as to costs.