Sophistry Individuals should be able to have wrong information held by the New South Wales Police Force (Police) on the Computerised Operational Policing System database (COPS database) amended but they can’t, not because the Police are unable to amend wrong personal information, they are, but because the Police plain don’t want to. Individuals have tried…
DQU v University of New England Where s 10(b) of the PPIP Act should have been an issue but wasn’t. Background The University of New England (University) had a dual purpose for collecting information about DQU (who wanted to come to Australia with his wife and son to study at university[1]) and his brother DQV…
BWY v Secretary, Department of Education [2020] NSWCATAD 208 Where breaches of three Acts and a person’s rights were neither acknowledged nor dealt with. Background BWY worked for the Department of Education (Department) for a long time. She and her colleagues didn’t agree about everything all of the time, but who does? She was made…
Rights and wrongs Two wrongs EFR, a child, went to the shops with some other young people and took items valued at $8.20 without paying for them. She was issued with a caution by an officer of the New South Wales Police Force (the Police) under the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW).[1] The Police phoned…
Privacy rights and law enforcement functions (Amended on 19 July 2020. See post script.) Mr Cavallaro, a former member of the New South Wales Police Force (the Police), sent an open letter to his former colleagues who were serving police officers. The open letter came to the attention of an inspector and a detective inspector…
Power, jurisdiction, duty When questions of law arose in a privacy proceeding in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), where I was the applicant, I asked the Tribunal to, under s 54(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (CAT Act), refer the questions of law to the Supreme Court for the…
Inconsistency Section 25, PPIP Act Section 25 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) (PPIP Act) says: “A public sector agency is not required to comply with section 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 or 19 if the agency is lawfully authorised or required not to comply with the principle concerned, or…
Principle of illegality The New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) has case law that needs wiping out because it stands in the way of persons (whose privacy was interfered with by public agencies in NSW) having their matters decided according to law. The Tribunal’s case law from the Appeal Panel’s decision in PN…
2020’s vision I hope 2020 brings a way of wiping out the two decades of case law ‘principles’, ‘rules’ and ‘misconstructions’ that the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) applies in privacy matters because if it does persons whose privacy was interfered with by a NSW public agency stand a chance of having…