XTD v Queensland Police Service

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

XTD v Queensland Police Service [2024] QCATA 117

PARTIES:

XTD

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL057-24

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

11 June 2024 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

11 June 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Mellifont J, President

ORDERS:

1. The appeal is dismissed pursuant to section 47(1)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) as misconceived.

2. Pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) publication of:

(a)     the contents of a document or thing filed in or produced to the tribunal;

(b)     evidence given before the tribunal; and

(c)     any order made or reasons given by the tribunal,

is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of the applicant, save as is necessary for the parties to engage in and finalise this proceeding.

3.   Any material affected by the non-publication order shall not be copied or inspected without an order of the Tribunal, except by a judicial member, tribunal member, judges associate, any assessor appointed to assist the Tribunal, the staff of the Tribunal registry, or the parties to this proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – Appeal on a question of law only – whether appellant raises any question of law in decision appealed from – appeal dismissed

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) s 132

O’Connor v The Department of Child Safety, Seniors and Disability Services [2024] QCATA 34

R65 and Queensland Police Service [2024] QICmr 2

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

H M Lane, Legal Officer, Queensland Police Service

REASONS FOR DECISION

XTD filed an application to appeal in Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 15 February 2024 against a decision of the Information Commissioner made on 24 January 2024: R65 and Queensland Police Service [2024] QICmr 2 (‘R65’). That decision related to an application for information made by XTD to the Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’) on 8 June 2023. He sought any documents related to any information given to the police from 2011 to 2015 and any information related to the police occurrence reports for material in 2013, 2014, that is, material of a particular type. The type of documents the applicant was seeking was any type of document within the range of January 2011 through December 2015. The applicant thought the documents might be in the police archives.
The decision by the Information Commissioner was itself on review from a decision made by the QPS on 4 October 2024. I have both the QPS decision and the Information Commissioner decision before me. The QPS had identified six documents which met the description of the documents sought by XTD’s application. QPS provided one document in full and five documents in redacted form. XTD appealed that decision by way of review to the Information Commissioner, seeking access to the balance of those five pages, that is, seeking access to those parts which had been redacted.
XTD described to me today that what he was seeking from the Information Commissioner was whether there was any information why a person who had made a complaint in respect of him had made it. Had such documents existed, they would have been captured within the original application. I observe that the Information Commissioner made reference to the submissions which the applicant had made, in particular at paragraph 14, where the Commissioner observed that XTD had submitted that he requires access to the information in issue so that he can better understand the information that QPS holds about him and review its veracity.
I also note in particular at paragraph 19 that the Information Commissioner had regard to the applicant’s submissions, noting that the applicant believes that some information held by other government agencies, including a local council, may be incorrect. He considers that information held by QPS may shed light on this issue as well as assisting him to understand a criminal history check that he obtained and a search warrant that was executed against him. The Information Commissioner said:
However, I am unable to readily discern a connection between the Information in Issue and the matters of concern raised by the applicant. I am not satisfied that disclosure of the Information in issue could reasonably be expected to reveal that it is incorrect, or to otherwise enlighten the applicant about the other matters of concern to him. In addition, I am not aware from the material before me that QPS has taken any adverse action against the applicant as a result of the Information in Issue.
In XTD’s appeal application to this tribunal, XTD described his grounds of appeal as follows:
If I spoke to the Police officer in Rockhampton on the day and corrected this information, and this matter would be over in 2013 not 2024. I found this information out in 2023. I am not really after or care about the information made by this person or details. I don’t know this person. I just want the facts behind it. It would be a piece of mind for me [sic].
Relating to matters that happened prior to my mother’s death in Brisbane and the burial of my mother in Rockhampton in October 2013. Why were they tried to incriminate me. Why was the information sent to the Rockhampton Police station for further investigation. I was never questioned or interview by the QLD Police over these matters [sic].
In that application, in respect of the orders sought, XTD said:
These allegations were false and want a clearance from the Qld Police. To clear my name to stop using this information against me for the wrong reason for their benefit. I am a good character, integrity, very well respected in my local community, performing volunteering duties to help the less fortunate [sic].
The matter came before me by way of a directions hearing on 30 April 2024, at which time I explained to XTD that matters which come before QCAT by way of appeal from the Information Commissioner are as to alleged errors of questions or a question of law. I gave XTD the opportunity to file any submissions he wished to support the proposition that there was an error or errors of law made by the Information Commissioner so that I might consider whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter, or whether the matter ought to be dismissed.
The applicant filed submissions on 30 May 2024 which I will quote:
On the 26/05/2014 I was raided by the Federal Police with search warrants. Sometime later, I was introduced to the Queensland Police Detective by the Federal Police Agent he said to me, he want you to ask some questions gave me his name he ask me the questions and I answer them.
I did not know what that was all about at the time.
I was more worried about my 14 year old daughter coping, and my volunteer job, Federal Police stated to me to give Vinnie’s a ring and I did and told them about the situation and I can’t open the shop up and I will be in late.
The Federal and Qld Police gave nothing away about this matter about the incident that happened on 10 October 2013, I was not aware of this information until I received this information from the Queensland Police Service RTI in 2023 or there was no occurrence information about this matter from the Queensland Police on the day, when I was raided on that day.
The Queensland Police were there for the 10 October 2013 case.
I was expecting information from the Office Information Commissioner and there is none about this interview with the Queensland Police officer.
The police officer could be from the local branch I sent an email to J. Gately RTI dated 05/07/2023 expressing the Queensland Police was present, and this matter dated 10 October 2013 was a Queensland Police matter.
I will not be responsible or accountable for any legal proceedings/court/fines etc! In my name, in relation to other family members who have put false allegations under my name.
This is a true and correct statement.
I have stated, an appeal to QCAT can only be in respect of a question or questions of law. Section 132(1) of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) (‘IP Act’) provides that a participant in an external review may appeal to the appeal tribunal of QCAT against a decision of the Information Commissioner on the external review. Section 132(2) of the IP Act provides that the appeal may only be under question of law. Section 132 (5) provides that the appeal may only be by way of rehearing.
In O’Connor v Department of Child Safety, Seniors and Disability Services [2024] QCATA 34, Judicial Member D.J. McGill SC stated:
[2] …The review by the Commissioner is a full merits review, but there is no appeal to the Tribunal from the decision of the Commissioner, on a question of fact, or on a question of mixed fact and law. It follows that the appeal is in the nature of judicial review. The appeal must be “on” a question of law, not just involve a question of law. If the appellant does show an error of law by the Commissioner, the remedy is to refer the matter back to the Commissioner, unless as a matter of law only one decision is open.
…
[5] …In principle when an appeal is only on a question of law, the appellant should identify the question or questions of law the subject of the appeal. Where the appellant is a litigant in person, it is unrealistic to expect her to be able to formulate properly a question of law, but the Tribunal cannot give a party legal advice. It is sometimes possible to identify a question of law in the grounds raised by an appellant litigant in person, or in submissions in support of the appeal, but I consider it is not open for the Tribunal to identify some other question of law, and decide the appeal on that basis, particularly if the ground has not been dealt with by the respondent in submissions.
…
[8] …What matters in this appeal is whether the Commissioner has complied with the provisions of the IP Act, not whether the respondent has complied with the provisions of some other Act.
In considering this matter, I have read all of the material which the parties have provided, which is really the material provided by the applicant, including and in particular and with a close eye, the material provided by XTD in his application and in his submissions on 30 May 2024 to ascertain whether or not that material discloses a question or questions of law which would ground jurisdiction for an argument on appeal in this tribunal. I have formed the view the material does not disclose an alleged error or alleged errors of law, and the appeal by XTD to the Tribunal is dismissed.

[2024] QCATA 117

11 June 2024 (ex tempore)