Lake v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 15;

1. NSW Police Customer Assistance Unit (CAU) responded, presumably by email:

Thank you for contacting the NSW Police Force. Your reference is #CAS-2221995-V6N7

This type of enquiry will need to be discussed directly with a police officer. You can locate your nearest station and contact details by following this link https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/about\_us/regions\_commands\_districts

When calling this station, please listen for the option to talk to an officer at the station (not general enquiries).

Kind regards

Customer Assistance Unit

1. The link provided by the CAU directs the user to the physical location, postal address, phone and fax number of all police stations in NSW. There is no information via that link about how to contact any police station by email.
2. The Applicant responded to the CAU the same day:

I'm in Melbourne and am deaf, cannot use a phone. Further, it's a lot simpler to read the map information and reply in an email. Finally, I do not know which station to contact. It may be Thredbo, Khancoban, Cooma, or Search and Rescue.

Can you please send my enquiry to SAR, a good starting point.

1. For reasons that are unknown, the CAU did not respond to the Applicant's email at that time.
2. On 26 February 2025, the Applicant made a complaint about the CAU to NSW Police. The complaint identified that the Applicant is deaf and cannot use a phone and cut and pasted the previous communications in pars 16 and 19 above and then states "There was no reply. A reply is sought." That same day, the CAU responded. Having regard to the content, the CAU was responding to the initial inquiry on 15 January 2025, as follows:

Thank you for contacting the NSW Police Force Customer Assistance Unit. You reference is #CAS-2221994V6N7.

There are a number of options to provide information to the NSW Police. These options relate to information in which you are not a victim.

● You can report the matter to your local Police Station.

● You can report information confidentially to Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or through the Police website, https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/can\_you\_help\_us/report\_information\_about\_crime\_crimestoppers

If you elect to provide information via the Police website, the submission form allows the uploading of media files to Crime Stoppers

1. Receiving no further reply from NSW Police, the Applicant contacted and, in some cases, complained to the NSW Ombudsman, ADNSW, LECC and finally PSC about the conduct of NSW Police. There is no evidence before the Tribunal about the Applicant's communications and complaints with these bodies, other than ADNSW and letters from LECC and PSC finalising their consideration of the Applicant's complaints.
2. The Administrative Officer Conduct Unit (AOCU) within the PSC sent a letter to the Applicant following their consideration of his complaints against NSW Police on 18 August 2025 (the AOCU letter). That letter relevantly states:

Request for information

Regarding your request for information, the NSWPF does not generally release information obtained during police operations due to its operationally sensitive and confidential nature. Requests for information held by NSWPF as a government agency can be made under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act). Applications of that nature are then dealt with by the organisation, having regard to factors weighing in favour of and against disclosure under the GIPA Act.

I regret that you were not informed, upon contacting the Customer Assistance Unit (CAU), that you could make an application under the GIPA Act. I acknowledge that should have occurred. Unfortunately, the CAU representative that responded to your query was new to performing this role and their failure to identify the appropriate avenue for requesting the information sought was due to a gap in their knowledge, which has since been remedied.

I note in your subsequent contact with the CAU, after you were advised to direct your enquiry to the nearest police station, you indicated you are deaf and cannot use a phone. You also advised you did not know which station to contact, suggesting that potentially Thredbo, Khancoban or Cooma police stations or Search and Rescue could have been involved. You also asked, "Can you please send my inquiry to SAR, a good starting point".

Though regrettably you were not informed of this at the time, your query was subsequently forwarded by an administrative officer at CAU to the Riverina Police District (PD) in which Khancoban police station is located. I am aware that Inspector Gibson of Riverina PD wrote to you on 31 July 2025, expressing gratitude and acknowledging the value of the information contained in your email.

Having reviewed your emails and Insp Gibson's response to you, I consider there was likely a misunderstanding of the phrase, 'Details are sought about where it is believed that [bushwalker] went'. As you had not expressly stated that you were seeking those details, I believe the recipients of your email may have formed the view that you were responding to a request for information by providing the details set out in your email. While you were also asked, 'where was he found?' in your email, you then appeared to answer that question by saying, 'It may be near Carruther's saddle'. Again, I believe this may have created confusion and caused the reader to believe you were providing information rather than requesting information.

1. Annotations made to the AOCU letter by the Applicant in his submissions indicate that the response from Inspector Gibson of Riverina Police District did not answer his questions about the missing bushwalker and that he was not informed of the specific police stations involved with the search.

1. The requirement that the Tribunal determine whether to grant or refuse leave for a complaint to proceed is found in s 96(1) of the Act:

96 Leave of Tribunal required for inquiry into certain matters

(1) A complaint that is referred to the Tribunal on the requirement of a complainant under section 93A (1) may not be the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal without the leave of the Tribunal.

1. The principles relevant to the exercise of discretion in s 96 of the Act were summarised by Hennessey ADCJ in Margan v Macquarie University [2025] NSWCATAD 198 as follows:

7. This provision gives the Tribunal a discretion to allow a complaint to be the subject of proceedings or to refuse to allow a complaint to be the subject of proceedings. That decision is not "dictated by the application of a fixed rule to the facts" but involves "value judgments in respect of which there is room for reasonable differences of opinion, no opinion being uniquely right": Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17 at [4]; [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513 at 518 per Mason and Deane JJ. However, the court may give guidance "as to the manner in which the discretion should be exercised": Norbis at [519].

8. The courts have provided guidance of that kind in Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143 (Ekermawi). On appeal, the Court of Appeal endorsed that approach: Jones & Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388 (Jones). In summary:

1. The Tribunal's decision is not subject to any fixed rule or legislative standard, but it must be exercised "having regard to the context in which it appears and the purposes for which it is provided": Salido v Nominal Defendant (1993) 32 NSWLR 524 at 536 (Kirby P) (Emphasis added.)

2. Leave should be granted or refused depending on what is "fair and just in the particular circumstances, with an onus falling on the plaintiff to establish that the leave should be granted": Ekermawi at [40].

3. The President's reasons for declining a complaint are relevant "although not necessarily determinative of the leave application ...": Jones [2009] NSWCA 388 at [60].

9. Applying these principles, Schmidt AJ in Ekermawi at [38] held that question of leave should be approached "on the basis of identifying whether it is fair and just to grant or refuse the leave sought in the particular circumstances in which the application for leave to proceed with a complaint comes forward". Her Honour went on, in the same paragraph, to explain what is meant by fairness and justice in the context of the discretion under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act:

That requires the position of both parties to be considered. Whatever the contest between the parties might be, the question of leave must be determined having in mind the purposes of the Act, which includes precluding unlawful discrimination and to permit those who have been so discriminated against, a remedy. Given that the legislation does not require all complaints to be investigated and dealt with, this means that while on the one hand, an obviously meritorious complaint will not be refused leave, where, for example on the other, it is apparent that the complaint lacks substance, or where the complaint is already being redressed elsewhere, leave may be refused, if that is what justice dictates.

1. The Respondent argues that leave should be refused on the grounds that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the complaint, the complaint is lacking in substance because it is bound to fail and that granting leave would be contrary to the public interest.
2. The Applicant seeks that leave be granted arguing, in essence, that his complaint is likely to succeed. The Applicant also refutes that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. Unsurprisingly given he is not legally represented, the Applicant's submissions do not engage with the legal issues arising in this matter.
3. The reasons that follow explain first why the Tribunal has come to the view that this Tribunal is not conferred with jurisdiction to hear and determine the Applicant's complaint which requires that the application for leave be refused. They further explain why, even if the Tribunal is wrong about jurisdiction, the Tribunal considers the only fair and just outcome is to refuse leave.

1. The Tribunal has a duty to consider and determine the limits of its jurisdiction and to observe those jurisdictional limits (Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn [2022] HCA 16 at pars 17-21).
2. The present application for leave falls within the Tribunal's general jurisdiction pursuant to ss 28(2) and 29 CAT Act and s 96 of the Act.
3. If leave is granted, the Applicant will be permitted to proceed to have his complaint against NSW Police determined by the Tribunal.
4. Determination of the Applicant's complaint involves hearing a matter between 'a State' and 'a resident of another State' and therefore amounts to the exercise of federal jurisdiction (cls 75(iv) and 76 Constitution of Australia (Cth)). It has been authoritatively determined that the Tribunal is unable to exercise federal jurisdiction in respect of complaints referred to it pursuant to s 96 of the Act and consequently ss 28(2) and 29 CAT Act are read down so as to exclude these matters (Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15 per Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ at par 64).
5. As the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the Applicant's complaint, then regardless of merit and other factors relevant to the leave application, leave must be refused. Any hearing of the complaint by the Tribunal would be ultra vires and any resulting decision would be invalid (Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34 at par 24; LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12 at par 2).
6. If the above conclusion as to jurisdiction is wrong, the Tribunal would nonetheless refuse leave for the primary reason that the Applicant's complaint lacks substance such that it would not be fair or just to permit it to proceed to determination. The reasons for this conclusion are set out as follows.

The Applicant's complaints of disability discrimination

1. Pursuant to s49M(1) of the Act, it is unlawful for NSW Police to discriminate against the Applicant on the ground of disability by refusing to provide him with services or in the terms on which services are provided:

49M Provision of goods and services

(1) It is unlawful for a person who provides, for payment or not, goods or services to discriminate against a person on the ground of disability -

(a) by refusing to provide the person with those goods or services, or

(b) in the terms on which he or she provides the person with those goods or services.

(2) Nothing in this section renders it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person's disability if the provision of the goods or services would impose unjustifiable hardship on the person who provides the goods or services.

1. Section 49B of the Act sets out what constitutes discrimination on the ground of disability:

49B What constitutes discrimination on the ground of disability

(1) A person (the perpetrator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of disability if the perpetrator -

(a) on the ground of the aggrieved person's disability or the disability of a relative or associate of the aggrieved person, treats the aggrieved person less favourably than in the same circumstances, or in circumstances which are not materially different, the perpetrator treats or would treat a person who does not have that disability or who does not have such a relative or associate who has that disability, or

(b) requires the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition with which a substantially higher proportion of persons who do not have that disability, or who do not have a relative or associate who has that disability, comply or are able to comply, being a requirement which is not reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case and with which the aggrieved person does not or is not able to comply.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (a), something is done on the ground of a person's disability if it is done on the ground of the person's disability, a characteristic that appertains generally to persons who have that disability or a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons who have that disability.

(3) For the purposes of, but without limiting, this section, the fact that a person who has a disability of or relating to vision, hearing or mobility has, or may be accompanied by, a dog which assists the person in respect of that disability, is taken to be a characteristic that appertains generally to persons who have that disability, but nothing in this Act affects the liability of any such person for any injury, loss or damage caused by the dog.

(3A) For the purposes of, but without limiting, this section, the fact that a person who has a disability -

(a) is accompanied by, or possesses, a palliative or therapeutic device, or other mechanical equipment, that provides assistance to the person to alleviate the effect of the disability, or

(b) is accompanied by an interpreter, a reader, an assistant, or a carer, who provides interpretive, reading or other services to the person because of the disability, or because of any matter related to that fact,

is taken to be a characteristic that appertains generally to persons who have that disability.

(4) A reference in this section to persons who have a disability ("the particular disability") is a reference to persons who have the particular disability or who have a disability that is substantially the same as the particular disability.

1. The Applicant has the onus of proving that NSW Police has engaged in unlawful discrimination on the ground of his disability. For the reasons that follow the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant cannot meet that burden.
2. The Applicant has not identified in his points of claim or submissions the service that NSW Police either refused to provide or provided on less favourable terms by reason of the Applicant's disability. Nor has the Applicant identified how NSW Police treated him less favourably than a hearing comparator seeking the same type of information, or how he was required to comply with a condition that was unreasonable and with which he could not comply.
3. In response to a request for information about the alleged discriminatory conduct by ADNSW, the Applicant said the following:

Q2 What is the service you believe you were refused or provided on less favourable terms

The NSW Police gave a pro forma answer that may be acceptable in most circumstances. I then advised that the matter could be handled by several police stations and that I could not phone them because I was deaf. The NSW Police still said to phone a police station, totally ignoring my advice that multiple stations are in the frame and that I was deaf. Even if I could hear the response was unhelpful in that I would have had to contact up to four or so police stations to find the right one. The NSW Police did not give me email contacts for all the stations I cited. How does the NSW Police expect me to contact the stations?

Q3 Why do you believe that conduct is related to your deafness?

The NSW Police do not meet a standard that reasonable provision must be made for people with a disability. All they had to do was read, comprehend and act on my advice that I was deaf. The conduct of those involved is unacceptable.

1. It is noted that the Applicant's statement to ADNSW in the above par that, after he advised NSW Police he was deaf, they "still said to phone a police station, totally ignoring my advice that multiple stations are in the frame and that I was deaf" is not accurate. According to the excerpts of the emails in the Applicant's material (set out at pars 17 and 21 above), prior to the Applicant advising that he was deaf, NSW Police provided a link that identified the physical location of Police Stations in NSW, their postal address and their fax numbers. After the Applicant advised he was deaf, he was also provided a link to make an online submission.
2. After the President of ADNSW declined the Applicant's complaint, the Applicant emailed ADNSW as follows:

You said:

"On his own information, the complainant has not been refused a service or provided a service on less favourable terms due to his disability. He was provided with online links to relevant regional police station contact details, and to make a report online as an alternative to phoning a police station."

This is untrue. The matter could have been dealt with at one of at least four police stations. I asked which station was the one to contact, and the NSW Police would not advise me. I have made a report online but NSW Police refuse to reply. All they have to do is send the enquiry to the right area. On that basis, I have suffered discrimination. It is a gross waste of resources to refer the matter to NCAT. Further, NCAT may lack jurisdiction.

If you cannot review the matter, is there anything stopping you from considering a fresh application? If that is not possible, I wish to refer the matter to NCAT.

An answer to my initial simple enquiry would have taken one police staff member 20-30 minutes. Instead quite a lot more people have taken a lot longer to get where we are now, months.

1. In his submissions dated 22 September 2025, the Applicant responds to the Respondent's contention that he has not identified the relevant service that he says were refused or provided on unfavourable terms as follows:

29. ...The Respondent made it very hard for me to determine the information I was seeking.

30. ...I have shown how hard it is for me to find the right police station. It would take 30-60 minutes with the National Relay Service (NRS) with each police station, several hours. A person who could hear could do this much faster. I could write a letter, but that too would take longer and be harder than a person who could hear who could phone. One major problem is that the respondent declines to identify the right station. In my view this evidences incompetence, and that is something that the Tribunal may be able to consider. It is a very damning indictment that the respondent still refuses to advise me which police station is involved. The respondent's ways are deeply embedded with incompetence and being unhelpful.

1. Determining whether the Applicant's complaint has substance requires the Tribunal to define as precisely as possible the service in question (Waters v Public Transport Corporation [1991] HCA 49 per McHugh J at par 23).
2. The Tribunal could not be satisfied that NSW Police provides a service offering to the public the type of information sought by the Applicant, namely (a) specific information about a past police operation concerning a missing bushwalker (see par 16 above) and (b) information about which police stations had been involved with that operation (see par 19 above). The AOCU letter is clear that access to that information is typically obtained through the processes established under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act). Consequently, even assuming NSW Police refused to provide that information to the Applicant, that could not amount to unlawful discrimination in the provision of a service.
3. The Applicant's submissions demonstrate that it is his view that NSW Police had a duty to make accommodations for his disability and that this was not done:

32. There is a widespread expectation that reasonable provision be made for people with disabilities. Sometimes there is no provision, and the solution is to manage the situation to accommodate the person's disability. ... I deal with people and entities every day. They know that I am deaf and find ways to manage my deafness. ... The respondent is an outlier, refusing to accommodate my disability and also being very unhelpful in not identifying the police station managing the search.

1. As explained by Hennessy ADCJ in Trott v Uniting NSW.ACT [2025] NSWCATAD 183 at par 35, there is no positive duty in the Act "to provide 'reasonable adjustments' when services are being provided to a person with a disability".
2. For these proceedings, although there is no direct evidence, it is inferred from the available evidence that there are two relevant services provided by NSW Police which the Applicant was seeking to access:

(1) A service offered by NSW Police through the CAU to supply to members of the public information about how to contact police stations and how they can seek information from NSW Police. It is also inferred that the service includes forwarding email enquiries to relevant police stations (as was ultimately done by the CAU in this case).

(2) A service offered by NSW Police to allow members of the public to make reports and provide and request information from police stations or police officers (it is not possible on the evidence, and in any event not necessary, to identify the precise limits of this service).

1. Assuming NSW Police was providing the services to the Applicant in par 48 above, the evidence does not demonstrate the Applicant was directly discriminated against.
2. There is no evidence from which it could be inferred that the CAU would have dealt with enquiries by a comparator, assumed for these proceedings to be a hearing person, of a similar nature to the Applicants more favourably than how they dealt with the Applicant. The evidence suggests to the contrary; there is substantial similarity between the way the Applicant's enquiry was dealt with by the CAU prior to knowing the Applicant was deaf (at par 17 above) and after being informed that he was deaf (at par 21 above). The evidence suggests that all members of the public, hearing and non-hearing, are offered a wide range of in person, written and online mechanisms for providing and seeking information.
3. There is further no evidence capable of demonstrating that NSW Police engaged in indirect discrimination towards the Applicant. None of the options provided by the CAU to the Applicant to contact police stations reflect the imposition of unreasonable requirements or conditions that a hearing comparator could comply with and which the Applicant could not because he is deaf.
4. There was no requirement imposed, as the Applicant alleges, that he contact the relevant police stations by phone. As pars 17 and 21 show, the CAU provided the Applicant with several means of contacting police stations. That information would have allowed the Applicant to contact the police stations in person, by letter, by phone, by facsimile, by an online submission or via the NSW Police Facebook page. On one view these are requirements imposed by NSW Police upon all members of the public who wish to contact them. Even if offering the Applicant these options for contacting NSW Police constitutes the imposition of a requirement or condition for the purpose of s 49B(1)(b) of the Act, it could not amount to indirect discrimination because (a) the requirement is plainly reasonable and (b) the Applicant was able to comply with the requirement.
5. The Applicant's own evidence set out in pars 42 and 43 above show that, in addition to making an online submission, he was able to contact the police stations that he identified might have information he wanted by post or through the National Relay Service. The Applicant does not address in his evidence whether he communicated by Auslan and whether he would have been able to access an Auslan interpreter, potentially provided by NSW Police, had he sought to attend police stations in person.
6. The evidence strongly suggests that the Applicant's objection to the options provided by the CAU was in part because he was deaf, but also because there were several police stations that might have been involved, he lived in Melbourne a considerable distance from those police stations and, given this, he was of the view that communication by post was too slow and the National Relay Service would be cumbersome. Accepting the Applicant's requests for information from NSW were of significant interest to him, they were not urgent or objectively time sensitive. Plainly, the Applicant's complaint was not that he was unable to contact NSW Police, but rather he was unable to communicate with them by his preferred manner which was email. While that would be undoubtably more efficient for the Applicant, the failure to offer him the ability to email police stations directly does not amount to unlawful discrimination (see par 47 above).
7. For the above reasons, the Applicant's complaint could not establish that NSW Police has engaged in unlawful discrimination in the provision of a service on the grounds of disability as required by s 49M of the Act. In these circumstances, the Applicant will not suffer a detriment by being refused leave for his complaint to proceed. It is fair to both parties for leave to be refused as they will not be required to prosecute or defend an unmeritorious complaint. Ending the proceedings at this preliminary stage represents a just outcome in all the circumstances. Accordingly, leave is refused for the applicant's complaint to be the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal pursuant to s 96(1) of the Act.
8. The orders of the Tribunal are:

(1) An oral hearing of the adjournment application is dispensed with pursuant to s 50(2) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

(2) The application for adjournment of the hearing of this matter is refused.

(3) Leave is refused for the applicant's complaint to be the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

22 January 2026 - Medium Neutral Citation corrected to remove duplication of the applicant.

09 February 2026 - Paragraph 16: instead of 80704 it should read 086704.