DYD v Commissioner of Police

The Applicant Reconsideration Submissions

1. In addition to the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure noted in [18] above, in the Applicant Reconsideration Submissions the Applicant submitted, in summary and most relevantly, that: 1. As regards the Appeal Decision reference that there was no evidence that any of the Relevant Information contained 'any findings, adverse or otherwise' about DYD: 1. paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Applicant's 30 June Application noted that the information sought (i.e. the Relevant Information) pertains to how the Respondent dealt with the matters that relate to the Applicant personally as the Applicant was not satisfied with the Respondent's responses. In determining and responding the Respondent must have made 'findings, adverse or otherwise' on or about the Applicant including that the Applicant's complaints 'could not be sustained' which finding is on its face adverse to the Applicant. The Applicant also specifically noted comments from the documents released by and/or put in evidence by the Respondent such as "in common speak, [the Applicant] is a frequent flyer, and a well connected one at that" and "this does not need a response. Can you save this email stream to AANS?" Again, these are clearly findings (adverse or otherwise) in relation to the Applicant; 2. paragraph 4 of the 30 June Application noted that information in the COPS events pertaining to the Applicant's children with it being possible that the Respondent's personnel may have been considering those records because they are 'findings, adverse or otherwise' as to the Applicant; 3. in paragraph 5 of the 30 June information pertaining to the Respondent's different treatment of the Applicant once the Respondent had issued an ADVO against the Applicant. After the ADVO the position and approach of the Respondent changed with respect to the Applicant's access applications and therefore the implication is that this later approach to the Applicant is based on 'findings, adverse or otherwise' by the Respondent as to the Applicant; and 4. there are COPS events records of the Respondent that contain adverse and/or negative information on the Applicant such as that set out in paragraphs 234 and 238 of the Applicant's Affidavit which reflect the Respondent having 'findings, adverse or otherwise' in relation to the Applicant, especially as regards the Applicant's mental state. 1. As set out in the Applicant's submissions in the Original Decision, one motive for the Access Application by the Applicant is to obtain information to consider possible misconduct of the Respondent and the bona fides of a resultant potential malicious prosecution action by the Applicant against the Respondent for the issue of the ADVO. The Respondent has continually resisted providing information sought presumably relating to the Respondent having 'findings, adverse or otherwise' on the Applicant and thus are potentially evidence of that misconduct and in relation to that potential malicious prosecution action and see paragraph [53] of Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Barrett No. 2 [2016] NSWCATAP 86.