Australia, March 12 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Feb. 13:

1. Mr Higgins (the Appellant) was travelling along the Hume Highway on 9 April 2023 when a police officer pulled over his car. His interactions with the police officer were recorded in a Body-Worn-Video (BWV). The Appellant applied to the Commissioner of Police (the Respondent) under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act) for the information in the BWV. The Respondent gave the Appellant what we will call "view access" to the BWV. The Appellant could look at the video himself. The Appellant wanted "copy access" so he could distribute the video to the public.

2. The Appellant applied to the Tribunal for administrative review of the Respondent's decision under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act). The Tribunal affirmed the Respondent's decision. The Appellant then appealed to the Appeal Panel. The Appellant also applied for Car-Worn-Video (CWV) but there is no issue on appeal as to that part of his access application.

3. These reasons set out: the circumstances giving rise to the Appellant's application; the Respondent's decision; the Tribunal's orders; the grounds of appeal and orders sought; the Tribunal's findings and reasoning; and the Appeal Panel's reasons for accepting that the Tribunal has not provided adequate reasons for its conclusions. Finally we address a question of law raised by the Appeal Panel.

4. We have decided to set aside the Tribunal's decision and remit the whole case to be reconsidered by the Tribunal without further evidence.

Circumstances giving rise to the Appellant's application

5. The Tribunal set out the Appellant's evidence about his journey at [3] - [4] of the reasons for decision:

3) The Applicant's evidence was that he was driving north along the Hume Highway in New South Wales on holiday with his family on 9 April 2023. They were travelling to the ACT. The passengers in the vehicle, at the time, were the Applicant's wife and two children aged 7 years and 4 months.

4) The younger (4 month old) child was in a child's car seat attached to a back seat of the vehicle. There was a bike rack attached to the rear of the vehicle.

6 The Tribunal then described some of the circumstances which are recorded in the BWV at [5] - [8] of the reasons for decision:

5) The Applicant's vehicle was pulled over by a New South Wales police officer at approximately 9:15 AM. The police officer informed the Applicant that the Applicant's bike rack had been incorrectly installed and was partially obscuring the vehicle's number plate. He told the Applicant that this was a road traffic offence and indicated that a penalty notice would issue.

6) The police officer then observed the back seat of the vehicle and asked whether the child's seat had an anchor point, which the police officer did not see. The Applicant and his wife said that the child seat was UK manufactured and brought to Australia from the UK. The police officer was told that they were unaware of differences between Australian and UK laws about child restraints and that they would purchase an Australian made car seat as soon as practicable if required.

*Rest of the document and Footnotes can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/194f6fca8c777580b7716d4c)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.