NSW (Privacy) In Tribunal document submissions, is swearing totally frowned upon?

faustus · 2 August 2018

I have a privacy complaint against a Local Health District in NSW. This has been going on for over 18 months. Basically, I caught them in a major privacy breach involving almost 6 million records, including my own. They tried to cover it up by acting in an oppressive manner. There is extremely good evidence of corrupt conduct. I presented them with a 30 page internal review application detailing all the evidence I had. I was mentally exhausted. I ended it with "Please, no more".

The findings? Well... further corrupt conduct. It was so ridiculous and transparent and humiliating, that in retaliation, I told them I would never obtain treatment using my real identity. I have effected an Advance Care Directive that makes my consent to treatment contingent upon me being treated anonymously. I now know this will kill me because they refuse to treat me anonymously under any circumstances. This is a shame because I won't be withdrawing the ACD: I think they should treat me anonymously.

In further retaliation for what they did, I have submitted a revised internal review application that's almost 60 pages long. I have basically gone out of my way to twist the blade into them for what they did. This is now many orders of magnitude serious than what it was originally. I find it quite amusing.

The matter is before the Tribunal. Any suggestions on the following would help me a lot.

Questions

I have to submit evidence including statements, documents and a summary of legal arguments about the alleged conduct and about any financial, psychological or physical harm suffered because of the conduct

1. Regarding psychological harm, is it frowned upon to include any swear words? I'm not talking dropping f-bombs all over the place, but I'm saying, if I quote my inner dialogue and there's several swear words, will the Tribunal look down upon this? I just find the need to filter my emotions to be very stifling in terms of what's been done.

2. Should all my submissions regarding effects of conduct be made as statutory declarations?

Finally, this is the more complicated one:

3. The conduct has caused me tremendous psychological damage. However, the concept of putting a monetary value on my phenomenology is just plain weird. Instead, I intend to operationalise its impact on me by looking at all the time I have spent investigating this matter. I would like to know if my argumentation is sound.

i. The internal review application isn't a legal document. it's an act of violence that I've sublimated into words (basically i've used my mind as a weapon to inflict the type injury I actually want to do physically)
ii. Writing the application has been extremely unpleasant for me i.e. aggravated mental health problems
iii. Using time tracking software I can quantify the time spent
iv. Following i., ii., iii. i seek reimbursement for x hours of psychological injury at $x/hour

I will note that all of this is true: although I have done this for some sense of justice, I am completely nuts and this is all about inflicting a type of injury upon them that in 5-10 years they're still feeling it. I think I am going to succeed. It's beautiful.

Scruff · 14 August 2018

If I'm not too late and you still need an answer to this one, then the short answers are:

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.

The long answers are:

1. Don't swear - period. You are providing evidence, not making a movie. Swearing would only be acceptable in a situation where you are directly quoting something that someone said. In any other circumstance, it most definately will be frown upon - and possibly more.

2. When providing written evidence, particularly at an early stage, it is best to submit it in statement form. You only need to provide a statutory declaration if asked to do so or if there is a requirement. Check the NCAT site to see if any of the evidence you are submitting is required to be given by way of a statutory declaration, and for anything else, see this page at the LawAccess website for info on how to properly format a statement. Statements

3. How much time you spend investigating this yourself has nothing to do with "psychological damage" and will more than likely be totally disregarded. You could have reported the conduct, but chose to "investigate" yourself. That's on you and you alone.

Personal opinion and advice:

Your post makes you look like you're out for revenge rather than trying to obtain justice. That's the wrong attitude to have and if NCAT sees this, it will be very detrimental to your case.

I am completely nuts and this is all about inflicting a type of injury upon them that in 5-10 years they're still feeling it. I think I am going to succeed.

You will never succeed in doing that. Even if this makes a headline, it will be forgotten as soon as something else pops up for it's 15 minutes of fame.

If you believe that corruption has occurred, then forget the NCAT altogether and withdraw you're application - especially if you believe that this affects 6 million people.

Report it to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) instead. They have the resources to conduct a full and thorough investigation and if they conclude that corruption has occurred, then their conclusions and recommendations will be of much greater benefit to everyone than anything that you can achieve by pursuing this yourself through NCAT as an individual case.

A matter that is as big as you think this one is, should never be about revenge or "inflicting a type of injury upon them". It should be solely about having the conduct stopped, corrected and prevented in the future - and if it involves corruption, then that is what the ICAC is for.

faustus · 16 August 2018

Thanks for the reply. I have a month to make my submissions.

Scruff said:
3. How much time you spend investigating this yourself has nothing to do with "psychological damage" and will more than likely be totally disregarded. You could have reported the conduct, but chose to "investigate" yourself. That's on you and you alone.

If possible, can I just check with you on that?

What I'm saying is that all the time lost isn't on me, it's on them because I've been acting in a reasonable and step-wise fashion:

I did report the conduct to the agency. I submitted a 300 word internal review application. The Privacy Officer tricked me into withdrawing it by making an agreement regarding an audit that she knew she probably couldn't actually honour. She also said it would take 90 days to do an internal review; the legislation states 60 days.

I then waited 6 months for them to perform an audit of who could have accessed my records, only to then be told all access logs had been accidentally wiped. So sorry, case closed.

I ask for an internal review. I'm told there's "no reasonable grounds". I ask again, detailing why there is justification. They refuse. No reasonable grounds. I try one more time. 600 words, solid argumentation. "No reasonable grounds". I now know that they had no lawful right to refuse an internal review: even if the complaint was rubbish, they would have had to accept it.

I then reported it to the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner's hands were tied because they had no jurisdiction: no internal review, no jurisdiction. I also contacted the Ministry of Health and the Minister for Health. Little help.

Then, just as the 6 month deadline for submitting an internal review application was approaching, I identified another privacy breach, which gave me "reasonable grounds" to submit another application.

Somehow, in all the excitement, the agency managed to confuse this internal review application into a medico-legal report that never reached the Privacy Commissioner (which is what happens when you do the internal review). In other words, a complaint alleging an extremely serious privacy breach and corrupt conduct by the Privacy Officer that denied the Privacy Commissioner of jurisdiction over the complaint… that just so happens to never reach the Privacy Commissioner. It was also thrown: the most serious allegations were just skipped entirely. Basically they attempted to cover up a cover-up.

My point: I have history of anxiety and bipolar II. The gaslighting to which I was subjected triggered some hypomanic-anxious state. I would have settled for a 300 word internal review application. But for the conduct of the agency, we now have one with over 20,000 words. Well written, too.

Report it to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) instead.

My goal is to convince the Tribunal to refer it to the NSW Ombudsman for investigation, who will then refer it to the ICAC. Under the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act, there is meant to be some referral pathway that facilitates this.

It should be solely about having the conduct stopped, corrected and prevented in the future

Justice sometimes involves punishment. Also, I'm not entirely sure that I'm a very nice person.

Scruff · 17 August 2018

Justice sometimes involves punishment. Also, I'm not entirely sure that I'm a very nice person.

I totally agree with the first part - and the second part of that statement is refreshingly honest. I understand where you're coming from because I'm cuurntly having my own issues with a particular NSW Government department.

In regard to chasing this yourself, what I meant was that you can bet that if you pursue any form of compensation, that the other party will argue that you "willingly took the most difficult road for yourself", partcularly since you have existing medical conditions. You would basically have to prove that any aggravation of those conditions were caused by the stress of this matter alone, which will be difficult, and the other party will argue that your own actions contributed to it. It will be an uphill battle.

It really comes down to what you're trying to get from the Tribunal. If you're looking for some act against you to be corrected and maybe some compensation based on that, then you might be looking okay. But if you're main goal is to secure punishment for an act that you believe has affected millions of others, then NCAT is the wrong place. So the best option may be to get what you want from NCAT in relation to your own situation, then send everything to the ICAC yourself. The outcome of the NCAT case will most likely confirm if you have a valid argument for corruption anyway.

In regard to the Ombudsman, I see that as a backwards step. Ombudsmen are usually funded by the related industry and are only there to settle individual disputes. For example, the Energy and Water Ombudsman (EWON), was set up and is funded by the energy retailers. When I dealt with them, I found that they were useless as tits on a bull - even the most simplest of things that I told them on the phone were incorrect in their own case file and their research skills are non-existent.

The problem with any Ombudsman is that they are required to look at what should have happened and what did happen, and mediate a resolution - and any resolution is final. They don't even look at things like unlawful conduct or compensation because it's not their job to do so. So for any Ombudsman to refer unlawful conduct for investigation - forget it, I've never heard of it happening even though most complaints would involve such conduct. You'd have a better chance of convincing NCAT to do that because even as a civil tribunal, NCAT is required to uphold the law. The Ombudsman is only required to try and come up with a "fair and reasonable" resolution to a dispute.

As for punishment, it's worthwhile reading up on the ICAC, how it works, what it does and doesn't investigate, etc. There's plenty to read on their website. Basically, if the ICAC makes a finding of corrupt conduct, and that conduct constitutes one or more criminal offences, they will make a recommendation in their final report that the individual(s) be referred to the DPP for those offences. The DPP will then decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence to pursue prosecution - and that is happening more and more these days. So if you want punishment, that's how you'll end up getting it - and it will be the people who should be punished that will be punished.

Search

NSW (Privacy) In Tribunal document submissions, is swearing totally frowned upon?

faustus

Well-Known Member

Scruff

Well-Known Member

faustus

Well-Known Member

Scruff

Well-Known Member

Similar threads