Save that notations be added to requests 4 and 7 in terms agreed to by the parties, the decisions of the respondent be affirmed.

1 The applicant made several applications to the respondent, requesting amendment of records in police documents, allegedly containing information relating to his personal affairs, which he regarded as inaccurate, incomplete, out-of-date, or which would give a misleading impression.

2 These requests were made pursuant to Section 39 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 ("the Act"). The respondent did not accede to his requests and, pursuant to Section 50(2)(e) of the Act, the applicant has applied to the Tribunal for review of the respondent's decision.

3 There are seven statements in documents which the applicant seeks to have corrected. They are the following:

(1) In relation to a letter from Superintendent Tuck of the respondent to the applicant, dated 24 January 2002, correction is sought of the following statement:

"The property alleged to have been stolen by State Rivers' employees is equipment used in the water supply system and is property over which State Rivers' employees have control in their duties."

(2) In relation to the transcript of a conversation between the applicant and employees of Southern Rural Water ("SRW"), the applicant says an endorsement by Senior Constable Patten stating:

(3) In relation to a further statement in the document referred to in (2) hereof, the applicant said that a note allegedly made by Senior Constable Patten stating:

(4) The applicant alleges that a letter from the respondent to him, dated 15 October 2001, was never received by him. That request was resolved by agreement between the parties.

(5) In relation to (5), (6) and (7), the impugned document is a report of Inspector Dorian of the respondent to his superior which, it was stated from the Bar Table, was made on 17 December 2001. The relevant parts are the following:

"Report of testing by audio expert, Cattogio, revealed neutral/negative result, relative to any form of interference."

"The audio tapes in question were subsequently checked by an audio engineer, Cattogio, attached to the VSFSL (vide statement attached at folio 47., indicating a neutral/negative finding."

Where a document containing information relating to the personal affairs of a person (including a deceased person) is released to the person who is the subject of that information (or in the case of a deceased person, that person's next-of-kin) that person shall be entitled to request the correction or amendment of any part of that information where it is inaccurate, incomplete, out of date, or where it would give a misleading impression."

5 The background to these matters reveals that the respondent is very much the ham in the sandwich in relation to a long-standing series of disputes between the applicant and SRW. Disputes with the last-named have also come before this Tribunal pursuant to the provisions of the Act. For many years, the applicant has claimed that employees of SRW have conducted a vendetta against him and allegation and cross-allegation have been made, prosecutions have been issued and contested. Complaints were made by both the applicant and SRW to the respondent about the behaviour of each of the other parties. In a number of prosecutions brought against him, the applicant has been successful.

6 Throughout its progress through the Tribunal, the matter has given rise to a considerable number of applications and hearings. In October 2003, the matter was referred to Judge Higgins, who attempted to conduct a mediation, but without success. In November 2003, there was a hearing before Judge Bowman concerning the issue of a significant number of subpoenas that required a hearing and the delivery of considered reasons for decision.

7 The matter came on before me for hearing on 28 June 2004. On that date, the applicant was not ready to proceed, because the question of subpoenas and his right to issue further subpoenas had arisen. A number of subpoenas, both those issued pursuant to the leave of His Honour Judge Bowman and others which it was sought to issue, appeared to me to be objectionable because the breadth of the requests made compliance with them impossible from a practical viewpoint. I then adjourned the hearing to 28 July 2004, on which date the question of the production of documents was raised again, with counsel retained on behalf of SRW obtaining my leave to appear in relation to subpoenas served on that body. Those matters occupied a day and a half.

8 The hearing proper commenced on Thursday, 29 July 2004 in the early afternoon. In relation to the burden of proof, I had ruled that the applicant bore an initial burden to provide evidence making out a prima facie case against the respondent. Thereafter, the ultimate burden fell upon the respondent to justify the decisions it had made.

9 The applicant relied upon a number of documents, the first of which was a document entitled "Statement of Evidence of the Applicant". It was admitted without objection. In reality it was not a statement of evidence, it was a compilation of assertion, assumption, historical record, an attempt to express opinions which were not expressed by others who had the expertise to do so, and a considerable dialogue which had no possible relevance to these proceedings. To say it was not a statement of evidence is not to imply a criticism of the respondent in allowing it to go in as an exhibit. As I shall endeavour to explain hereafter, none of the matters relied upon by the applicant as being his statement of evidence gave rise to the establishment of a prima facie case against the respondent. Apart from his statement, the applicant tendered the documents which formed the basis for the requests for the notations in 1 to 7, together with other documents to which reference is not required.

10 The respondent called Inspector Dorian, whose statement is in evidence as Exhibit 1. Although cross-examination of Inspector Dorian went for 3 hours, there is no need to summarise it here.

11 I shall deal with each of the notations in turn:

1. It was for the applicant to mount a prima facie case that the property referred to was his and that it had been stolen. His assertions do not establish either of these matters. He does not condescend to identify the piece of property which he alleges was taken. Indeed, it is only by an exhaustive search of the various documents filed in the matter, that one is led to conclude that it was probably a piece of scrap timber, some 8 feet long and few inches wide. Further, there is nothing in the evidence which would justify a conclusion that it had been stolen by employees of SRW. Without proof of both of these matters, it seems to me that there is no way in which I can conclude that the information contained in the report of Superintendent Tuck was inaccurate, incomplete, or would give to a reader a misleading impression. Accordingly, the decision of the respondent is affirmed.

2. Notations 2 and 3 can be dealt with together. It would appear that somebody has made notes on a transcript of a tape recording of a conversation which occurred between the applicant and two employees of SRW on 2 August 2000. There are numerous bases upon which the applicant's request fails. First, it seems to me there is no way in which it could be said that the notations relate to the personal affairs of the applicant. Secondly, the tape was not tendered in evidence, although it was available to the applicant. Accordingly, I am in no position to determine whether the notations are accurate or inaccurate. Certainly there is no prima facie evidence to suggest that they are inaccurate. Thirdly, I have searched every document put into evidence and have failed to find any evidence at all that would enable me to conclude that the hand-written notes on the transcript are those of Senior Constable Patten. Accordingly, the request in relation to notations 2 and 3 has no foundation and the decision of the respondent is affirmed.

3. Notation 4 - the applicant asserts that the document concerning which this request is made, being a letter from Kenneth Thain to the applicant, was never received by him. That provides prima facie evidence of non-receipt. The respondent was willing to assume that it was not received by the applicant. The letter itself is a formal letter, acknowledging the fact that the applicant has made a complaint against a member of the Victoria Police and it gives a bland, and not argumentative, outline of the steps that will be taken in pursuing the investigation of the complaint. Upon the assumption it was not received, it does not justify the notation sought to be made by the applicant. Indeed, there is no basis for putting a notation in any other form than that which was agreed to between the parties, on the respondent's part, without admitting any liability to do so, namely "Mr Roberts contends that he did not receive a copy of this document."

I stress that there is nothing in the letter which can be said to be inaccurate, incomplete or which would give a misleading impression. Accordingly, there is no basis for acceding to the applicant's request. The act of grace of the respondent in agreeing to the above notation, where none is required by law, is an example of what I see as meticulous courtesy and fairness exhibited to the applicant throughout.

4. Notations 5 and 6 are contained in the report of Inspector Dorian, of 17 December 2001, to which reference has been made. It seems to me that critical to providing prima facie evidence was the need to call the audio expert referred to, Cattogio, because his reports do not justify the assertions made by the applicant in his so-called statement of evidence, nor assertions he made from the Bar Table. Without Cattogio's evidence, I am not satisfied that there is any prima facie evidence led by the applicant to justify the assertions that he makes. Further, even if he could show that the notations, or one or other of them, were inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, the applicant does not satisfy me that the notations referred to relate to his personal affairs. The applicant's requests fail and I affirm the decisions of the respondent.

5. The 7th notation also refers to a notation in the report of Inspector Dorian. The respondent offered, without any admission that it had a liability to do so, to add a notation in the following form to the relevant paragraph, being paragraph 6, on page 7 of Inspector Dorian's report and I quote:

"The conversation was a conversation between Rosemary Roberts, Kevin Roberts and Colin McQuillan; John Cameron was also present; the latter being two employees of SRW."

12 Save for requests number 4 and 7, in relation to which an agreed formula was arrived at by the parties, each of the other 5 requests of the applicant fails.

13 Before I leave this matter, I desire to make some general observations. The initiating document which appears to have provoked this application was a letter from the applicant to Senior Constable Patten, which bears the dates 10th of April - 12th of June 2000. In the letter he asserts that there had been a number of illegal/immoral activities which had been committed by various personnel at SRW in relation to their dealings with him, and the letter, in its entirety, relates to the applicant's relationship with SRW. It concludes by seeking an investigation into nine matters, based on nothing more than the applicant's assertion that the allegations made in the nine points have occurred in fact. Some of the matters raised appear to be outside the ambit of any police investigation. Attached to the letter is a seven-page chronology, which starts in September 1983 and concludes with reference to matters which occurred on 20 April 2000. Leaving aside the irrelevance of many of the matters raised by the applicant, the kind of investigation which he envisages, it seems to me, would require the time and dedication of a Taskforce of the size of the Purana Taskforce, or that of the investigative team which enquired into the multi-billion dollar losses incurred by the Bond Corporation in the late 1980's. His assertion in his written materials and from the Bar Table indicate that he expected, and felt he was entitled to, an investigation of those proportions. The letter displays the self-importance, arrogance and obsessive conduct revealed to me by the applicant throughout this hearing. Nonetheless, it is to the credit of the Victoria Police that all the ensuing documentation reveals a patience and courtesy and a depth of investigation which ran far beyond what was merited by the initiating letter.

14 Having drawn the police into what in many ways was a domestic dispute between himself and SRW, the applicant has thereafter made wild, malicious, outrageous and unfounded allegations about the conduct of a number of police members, most particularly, Senior Constable Patten.

15 If it weren't for the applicant's obsession with it, this matter would be revealed as a storm in a teacup. I feel sure that Parliament, in legislating for Section 39 of the Act, did not envisage that it would be the source of the extravagant, wasteful and unnecessary employment of time and money as has gone into this matter. I doubt whether the all-up cost to the community could be said to be less than $100,000, and perhaps, properly costed, it is in excess of double that figure.

16 Save where there has been agreement between the parties concerning notations 4 and 7, I otherwise affirm the decisions of the respondent.

Save that notations be added to numbers 4 and 7 in the terms agreed to between the parties, the decisions of the respondent be affirmed.