Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020
Dear Attorney-General,
Under the FOI Act 1982 I request any and all documents in your possession relating to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, including documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter.
Yours faithfully,
Waldek
Your email has been received by the Freedom of Information and Privacy
Section of the Attorney-General's Department. Please note that we will
only action and respond to FOI requests and other matters relating to the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). For information on how to
make an FOI request please refer to the FOI page on the department's
website at:
[1]https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protect....
If your email relates to the FOI Act, we will contact you shortly to
acknowledge and/or respond to your request. Please do not send duplicate
emails as this may cause delays in response time-frames.
For matters not relating to the Freedom of Information Act 1982, please
refer to the ‘Contact us' page on the department's website at:
[2]https://www.ag.gov.au/about-us/connect-u....
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protect...
2. https://www.ag.gov.au/about-us/connect-u...
Dear Waldek
Thank you for your email, received by the department on 30 August 2023, seeking information under the FOI Act.
Your request, as currently drafted, seeks “any and all documents in your possession relating to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, including documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter”.
To make a valid FOI request, you must provide sufficient information to enable a responsible officer of the agency or the minister to identify the document(s) that are requested.
For the purposes of section 15(2)(b) of the FOI Act, can you please confirm our understanding that you are seeking documents in the possession of the Attorney-General’s Department after Judge Vasta’s order to imprison the party to the family law proceedings, that relate to the subsequent false imprisonment civil proceedings brought against Judge Vasta?
I note that the Commonwealth was not involved in the false imprisonment of the applicant during the relevant family law proceedings. This is because the Australian system of government is based on a separation of powers between the Legislature (the Parliament), the Executive (the Government), and the Judiciary (the Courts). It is an essential feature of the Australian system of government that our courts are independent and free of interference from the executive arm of government. Consistent with this independence, the federal courts are each responsible for their own operation and management.
Given the need to clarify which documents you are seeking, the department is unable to take further action in response to your email of 30 August 2023 until the additional information requested above has been received.
Regards,
Radia
Freedom of Information & Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
Phone: 02 6141 6666 | Email: [email address]
Dear Radia,
In your email, you suggest that I have not made a valid FOI request. That is not true. My request is valid and I will explain to you why it is.
You ask the following question:
“For the purposes of section 15(2)(b) of the FOI Act, can you please confirm our understanding that you are seeking documents in the possession of the Attorney-General’s Department after Judge Vasta’s order to imprison the party to the family law proceedings, that relate to the subsequent false imprisonment civil proceedings brought against Judge Vasta?”
You then assert:
“I note that the Commonwealth was not involved in the false imprisonment of the applicant during the relevant family law proceedings. This is because the Australian system of government is based on a separation of powers between the Legislature (the Parliament), the Executive (the Government), and the Judiciary (the Courts). It is an essential feature of the Australian system of government that our courts are independent and free of interference from the executive arm of government. Consistent with this independence, the federal courts are each responsible for their own operation and management.”
In response to your question, my response is that my FOI request stands as it is. In other words, my FOI request, as it was worded on 30 August 2023, which is “under the FOI Act 1982 I request any and all documents in your possession relating to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, including documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter” remains my FOI request.
I am not, as you have suggested, after “documents in the possession of the Attorney-General’s Department [relating to] Judge Vasta’s order to imprison the party to the family law proceedings, that relate to the subsequent false imprisonment civil proceedings brought against Judge Vasta.”
Your assertion that “the Commonwealth was not involved in the false imprisonment of the applicant during the relevant family law proceedings” is false.
Please refer to the face of the record in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 before advancing outlandish claim.
The judgment can be accessed here: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/ju....
The Commonwealth of Australia was the second respondent in the matter.
The Court’s second order is: “Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant against the first and second respondents jointly for general and aggravated damages for false imprisonment and deprivation of liberty in the amount of $35,000 plus interest under s 51A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act) from 6 December 2018 to the date of judgment at the pre-judgment rates specified in the Interest on Judgments Practice Note (GPN-INT).”
Please also refer to paragraphs 549 – 553 of the judgment is Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020.
Relevantly, Justice Wigney found:
“For the reasons that have been given, Mr Stradford’s detention and imprisonment was unlawful and unjustified. Both the order that was made, and the warrant that was issued, by the Judge were invalid and of no legal effect. They provided no lawful justification for the detention and imprisonment.
For the detailed reasons that have been given, there is no recognised common law defence available to the MSS guards based merely on the fact that they acted pursuant to a warrant that appeared regular on its face. Nor are the MSS guards able to avail themselves of any common law defence that may be available to court officers, or ministerial officers, in those circumstances. They were not officers, or ministerial officers, of the Circuit Court. The MSS guards were also unable to avail themselves of any statutory defence.
It follows that the MSS guards committed the tort of false imprisonment. They imprisoned Mr Stradford without lawful justification.
The Commonwealth is vicariously liable for the tort committed by the MSS guards.”
Your claim that “the Commonwealth was not involved in the false imprisonment of the applicant during the relevant family law proceedings” is clearly false.
Before you accuse me of failing to make a valid FOI request on the basis of facts that you have made up, please take a moment to familiarise yourself with the judgment of the Federal Court of Australia, a superior court of record.
I hope you understand why your assertion that “the Commonwealth was not involved in the false imprisonment of the applicant during the relevant family law proceedings” is false.
According to the judgment, the person who effected the unlawful arrest were NOT officials of the Federal Circuit Court. Your claims about the separation of powers are not on point and, as such, are fallaciously deployed.
I requested access to any and all documents in your possession relating to the COMMONWEALTH’S involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, including documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter” remains my FOI request.
The Commonwealth was involved in the false imprisonment of the applicant. The Federal Court found that to be the case.
Unlike you, I have the facts straight. My FOI request is clear. It was deliberately worded as it was because (let me repeat is again) the COMMONWEALTH WAS INVOLVED IN THE FALSE IMPRISONMENT OF THE APPLICANT.
Do you understand why your claim that I have not made a valid FOI request is incorrect Radia?
My FOI request remains as it is because it is valid and assumes facts that are the Federal Court of Australia has found to be the case.
If you have any questions about the laws of Australia or Australian constitutionalism, feel free to ask me by return email; I would be more than happy to educate you.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Waldek left an annotation ()
For those interested in reading the Federal Court's judgment:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/ju...
Those reading the judgment will observe, on the face of the record, that the Commonwealth of Australia was successfully sued as the second respondent in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020.
Dear Waldek
Thank you for your follow-up email, and for providing further context for your FOI request.
The department understands you are seeking documents in possession of the department created after Judge Vasta’s order to imprison the party to the family law proceedings that relate to the subsequent false imprisonment civil proceedings brought against Judge Vasta. This includes any documents relating to the Commonwealth's role in the false imprisonment of the party, and documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter.
We would be grateful if you could please confirm our understanding of your FOI request, then we will proceed to register and action it.
Kind regards
Sarah
Freedom of Information & Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
Phone: 02 6141 6666
Dear Sarah,
I have not provided further context. I have merely refuted Radia's false claims
I am not asking for "documents in possession of the DEPARTMENT created after Judge Vasta’s order to imprison the party to the family law proceedings that relate to the subsequent false imprisonment civil proceedings brought against Judge Vasta [which] includes any documents relating to the Commonwealth's role in the false imprisonment of the party, and documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter."
I have submitted an FOI request to the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP, for any and all documents in the Attorney-General's possession relating to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, including documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter.
It's very simple.
My FOI request of 30 August 2023 reads:
"Under the FOI Act 1982 I request any and all documents in your possession relating to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, including documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter."
It was addressed to the Attorney-General.
The request is as clear as day. The intended recipient is as clear as day.
Would someone in the Office of the Attorney-General please confirm that my request of 30 August 2023 is a valid request for access to documents in the possession of a Minister of the Commonwealth (i.e. the Attorney-General)?
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
OFFICIALOFFICIAL
Dear Waldek
Thank you for your email of 10:58am today, clarifying that your FOI
request is addressed to the Office of the Attorney-General, and not to the
Attorney-General's Department. I apologise for the confusion at my end
between your two separate requests.
I confirm the department has received:
o At 2pm on 30 August 2023, an FOI request to [1][email address] addressed
to “Attorney-General's Department”, which we have numbered FOI23/463.
The request is for:
o any and all documents relating to the Commonwealth's involvement
in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a
pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, and
o any and all documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of
defending the matter in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta
[2023] FCA 1020 (as per your follow up email of 2:14pm on 30
August 2023).
o At 5:45pm on 30 August 2023, you sent an FOI request to
[2][email address] addressed to “Attorney-General”, which we have
numbered AGOFOI23/465. The request is for:
o any and all documents in your possession relating to the
Commonwealth’s involvement in the false imprisonment of the
applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA
1020, including documents setting out the cost to the
Commonwealth of defending the matter.
Next steps:
The department will forward AGOFOI23/465 to the Attorney-General’s Office
(AGO) for consideration of validity under s15(2)(b) and for appropriate
actioning.
In respect of FOI23/463, I reiterate the question I asked in my previous
email of 10:27am today:
The department understands you are seeking documents in possession of the
department created after Judge Vasta’s order to imprison the party to the
family law proceedings that relate to the subsequent false imprisonment
civil proceedings brought against Judge Vasta. This includes any documents
relating to the Commonwealth's role in the false imprisonment of the
party, and documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending
the matter.
Can you please confirm our understanding of FOI23/463 is correct so that
we are able to finalise registration and commence processing your request.
Kind regards
Sarah
Freedom of Information & Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
Phone: 02 6141 6666
OFFICIALOFFICIAL
Dear Waldek
Thank you for your email of 10:58am today, clarifying that your FOI
request is addressed to the Office of the Attorney-General, and not to the
Attorney-General's Department. I apologise for the confusion at my end
between your two separate requests.
I confirm the department has received:
o At 2pm on 30 August 2023, an FOI request to [1][email address] addressed
to “Attorney-General's Department”, which we have numbered FOI23/463.
The request is for:
o any and all documents relating to the Commonwealth's involvement
in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a
pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, and
o any and all documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of
defending the matter in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta
[2023] FCA 1020 (as per your follow up email of 2:14pm on 30
August 2023).
o At 5:45pm on 30 August 2023, you sent an FOI request to
[2][email address] addressed to “Attorney-General”, which we have
numbered AGOFOI23/465. The request is for:
o any and all documents in your possession relating to the
Commonwealth’s involvement in the false imprisonment of the
applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA
1020, including documents setting out the cost to the
Commonwealth of defending the matter.
Next steps:
The department will forward AGOFOI23/465 to the Attorney-General’s Office
(AGO) for consideration of validity under s15(2)(b) and for appropriate
actioning.
In respect of FOI23/463, I reiterate the question I asked in my previous
email of 10:27am today:
The department understands you are seeking documents in possession of the
department created after Judge Vasta’s order to imprison the party to the
family law proceedings that relate to the subsequent false imprisonment
civil proceedings brought against Judge Vasta. This includes any documents
relating to the Commonwealth's role in the false imprisonment of the
party, and documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending
the matter.
Can you please confirm our understanding of FOI23/463 is correct so that
we are able to finalise registration and commence processing your request.
Kind regards
Sarah
Freedom of Information & Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
Phone: 02 6141 6666
OFFICIAL
Dear Waldek
I am writing in reference to Freedom of Information requests FOI23/463 and
FOI23/500 to inform you that I am the caseworker who is now responsible
for processing these requests. I apologise for the delay experienced to
date but can confirm that the Attorney-General’s Department (the
department) is working to finalise these requests as soon as possible.
I note that on 4 October 2023, the department wrote to you at
[1][email address] to confirm that on 15
September 2023, the department accepted transfer of FOI request
AGOFOI23/463 from the Attorney-General’s Office. This request on transfer
from the Attorney-General’s Office to the department was issued with a new
FOI request number which is FOI23/500. Moving forward the department will
refer to this request as FOI23/500.
I have reviewed all the correspondence on file and consider that in both
FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 you are seeking access to:
….. any and all documents in your possession relating to the
Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in
Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, including documents
setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter.
If you disagree with this interpretation please let me know. I also
consider that valid requests for FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 were received on
30 August 2023. As both FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 are identical requests I
am writing to ask whether you would agree to withdraw one of the requests?
If so, I would appreciate your agreement to this in writing by responding
this email.
If you elect not to withdraw one of the requests, the department will
process both requests simultaneously by emailing
[2][email address] and
[3][FOI #10639 email] referencing both
reference numbers and will also provide you with a single decision letter
referencing both FOI23/463 and FOI23/500.
If you have any questions about this email please contact me at
[4][email address] or by calling 02 6141 6666.
Leonie
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [5][email address]
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[FOI #10639 email]
4. mailto:[email address]
5. mailto:[email address]
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Dear Applicant
I write further to our correspondence of 8 December 2023 and 14 December
2023 in relation to FOI requests FOI23/463 and FOI23/500, which are now
subject to Information Commission (IC) reviews. As outlined in our
correspondence of 8 December 2023, requests FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 are
identical requests and the department as such invites you to withdraw one
of these requests.
On 14 December 2023 we also wrote to you via the Right to Know contact
page [1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/cont...
inviting you to email us directly to engage on your requests.
We have not received a response from you to this earlier correspondence.
We are writing to you now to confirm that after searching the department’s
holdings, the department has identified 176 documents, totalling over 3500
pages that are captured by the terms of your request. The department views
that processing these documents for your request in its current form
(current scope) would constitute a substantial and unreasonable diversion
of resources. Under the FOI Act, this is known as a practical refusal
reason. Under section 24 of the FOI Act, an access request may be refused
if a practical refusal reason exists. Where the department is of the view
that a practical refusal reasons exists we will engage in a request
consultation process with the applicant to request that the applicant
revises the scope of their request. The aim of this process is to remove
the practical refusal reason so the request can continue to be processed
by the department. Before we undertake the request consultation process,
the department requests that you respond as promptly as possible to this
message so we can identify the documents of interest to you and to confirm
you wish to proceed with these IC reviews.
Thank you
Leonie
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [2][email address]
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
References
Visible links
1. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/cont...
2. mailto:[email address]
Dear Leonie,
In your email you have noted that you write to me in in furtherance of correspondence you sent on 8 December 2023 and 14 December 2023.
You stated:
“I write further to our correspondence of 8 December 2023 and 14 December 2023 in relation to FOI requests FOI23/463 and FOI23/500, which are now subject to Information Commission (IC) reviews. As outlined in our correspondence of 8 December 2023, requests FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 are identical requests and the department as such invites you to withdraw one
of these requests.
On 14 December 2023 we also wrote to you via the Right to Know contact page [1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/cont... inviting you to email us directly to engage on your requests.
We have not received a response from you to this earlier correspondence.”
I will address your claims about the correspondence that you claim to have sent me on 8 December 2023 and 14 December 2023.
8 December 2023 correspondence
In your correspondence of 8 December 2023, you stated:
“I also consider that valid requests for FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 were received on 30 August 2023. As both FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 are identical requests I am writing to ask whether you would agree to withdraw one of the requests?
If so, I would appreciate your agreement to this in writing by responding this email.”
You further noted, “If you elect not to withdraw one of the requests, the department will process both requests simultaneously by … referencing both reference numbers and will also provide you with a single decision letter referencing both FOI23/463 and FOI23/500.”
You requested that, if I agreed to withdraw one of the requests, I respond to your email. You did not receive a response from me. Since it was not “so”, the natural conclusion to be drawn is that I have not agreed to withdraw one of the requests.
14 December 2023 correspondence
I have not received any correspondence from the AGD dated 14 December 2023. Any correspondence that you send to me should appear publicly on this website. As you can see, there is nothing published on this website. Therefore, you have failed to draw whatever correspondence you claim to have sent on 14 December 2023 to my attention.
All correspondence should be sent to me at the email address that was set out in my email of 30 August 2023.
Claim about a practical refusal decision
You can try to claim that a practical refusal ground exists but you will not succeed. It seems to me that you have not carefully read the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Nor does it appear that you are familiar with the authorities and case law. If you were, you’d realise that such a decision would be beyond power.
You don’t actually think that a deemed refusal decision is without serious and binding legal consequences? Agencies don’t get to ignore the dictates of the FOI Act only to try to hide behind a practical refusal ground when it isn’t available to them under the law.
There is also the matter of your colleague Philip already having identified the documents within scope of my request in early October 2023, and having already engaged in consultation processes with a third party about the documents. The evidence suggests that the substantive work of processing my request has already been taken care of, which does beg the question how it is possible that your claim that there is a practical refusal ground has any merit.
It seems that the AGD has gone from claiming that “the Commonwealth was not involved in the false imprisonment of the applicant during the relevant family law proceedings” (see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...) to claiming that it has so many documents relating to the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 that it wants to claim that it will bring the operations of the entire agency to a halt to process a request for access to the documents relating to that false imprisonment. Quite an about face.
It boggles the mind that the AGD would be sitting on so large a trove of documents that relate to the false imprisonment of an Australian citizen by the Commonwealth. Have you prepared a list of the 176 documents that you can provide me with? I’d like to see what I can get my hands on.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Thank you for contacting the Freedom of Information (FOI) team at the
Attorney-General’s Department (the department). We get a high volume of
emails and FOI applications and work to respond as promptly as possible.
This email acknowledges your correspondence and provides some general
information in relation to FOI.
Please note that we will only respond to emails about the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). For information on how to make a
request under the FOI Act please refer to:
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protect....
For enquiries about other matters, please refer to:
https://www.ag.gov.au/about-us/connect-u...
The statutory processing time for FOI requests is 30 days, however this
may be extended if the department needs to consult third parties or for
other reasons. If you have submitted an FOI request, the department will
write to you again within 30 days of receiving your request. This
correspondence may:
* seek further information from you to help us process your request,
* provide you with a decision on your FOI request, or
* discuss whether an extension of time is needed to process your request.
Please do not send duplicate emails as this may cause delays to processing
times.
This FOI inbox is monitored business hours Monday to Friday, excluding
public holidays and the period from 23 December 2023 to 1 January 2024
inclusive. Your email will be responded to when staff resume their duties.
You can expect our team to provide a helpful, respectful service and we
expect respectful engagement in return.
Under s 89L of the FOI Act, disrespectful, threatening or abusive language
may be an abuse of the access action process. If this happens, we may not
be able to help you or we might take steps to manage how we communicate
with you.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
OFFICIAL
Dear Applicant
Thank you for your correspondence that confirms you do not wish to
withdraw one of the duplicate FOI requests.
I can confirm the department is continuing to process these requests and
will contact you again shortly to provide you with further information
about the categories of documents falling with the scope of your results.
Kind regards
Leonie
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][email address]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
OFFICIAL
Dear Applicant
Thank you for your correspondence that confirms you do not wish to
withdraw one of the duplicate FOI requests.
I can confirm the department is continuing to process these requests and
will contact you again shortly to provide you with further information
about the categories of documents falling with the scope of your results.
Kind regards
Leonie
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][email address]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Dear Waldek
I’m writing in relation to FOI request FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 to advise
that the department requires your assistance in clarifying our
understanding of the documents you are seeking access to. We’d therefore
be grateful if you could please respond to this email to confirm that you
are seeking access to:
1. Documents about the Commonwealth’s involvement, as a party, in the
false imprisonment claims made by the applicant in the Stradford (a
pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 case, and
2. Documents that set out the total cost to the Commonwealth in defending
the matter.
Your response to this question will greatly assist the department in being
able to finalise the requests as soon as possible. As per our previous
correspondence a large number of documents was initially identified as
falling within the scope of your request. This has impacted our ability to
process these requests in a timely manner. I can confirm that the
department has sought an extension of time from the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner to the 6 March 2024.
The department seeks your response to this email by 1 February 2024.
Kind regards
Leonie
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][email address]
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Dear Waldek
I’m writing in relation to FOI request FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 to advise
that the department requires your assistance in clarifying our
understanding of the documents you are seeking access to. We’d therefore
be grateful if you could please respond to this email to confirm that you
are seeking access to:
1. Documents about the Commonwealth’s involvement, as a party, in the
false imprisonment claims made by the applicant in the Stradford (a
pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 case, and
2. Documents that set out the total cost to the Commonwealth in defending
the matter.
Your response to this question will greatly assist the department in being
able to finalise the requests as soon as possible. As per our previous
correspondence a large number of documents was initially identified as
falling within the scope of your request. This has impacted our ability to
process these requests in a timely manner. I can confirm that the
department has sought an extension of time from the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner to the 6 March 2024.
The department seeks your response to this email by 1 February 2024.
Kind regards
Leonie
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][email address]
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Dear Leonie,
I submitted my FOI request more than five months ago.
I don’t understand why you have sent me an email claiming that the AGD requires my assistance in clarifying your understanding of the documents I am seeking access to when you or your colleagues have already stated that:
1. “after searching the department’s holdings, the department has identified 176 documents, totalling over 3500 pages that are captured by the terms of your request”: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
2. the AGD entered into third party consultation processes in respect of the documents identified: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s....
If officials were able to identify 176 documents falling within the scope of my request and entered into third party consultations in respect of those documents, then it follows that nobody in the AGD had any problems understanding the meaning of my FOI request. In fact, you promised, in your email of 22 January 2024, to contact me to provide me “with further information about the categories of documents falling with the scope of” my requests. Not only have you yet to do that, but contacting me to provide me “with further information about the categories of documents falling with the scope of” my requests demonstrates that you have had no problem whatsoever understanding my FOI request. It is, after all, as clear as day.
Your email of 25 January 2024, in which you now claim that officials in the AGD require me to clarify my request seems to me to be nothing more than another parlour trick to delay processing my request. This is not the first such trick. Your colleague Sarah tried the very same thing on 1 September 2023 when she attempted to read words into my request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s.... I firmly rejected her attempts to do so: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s....
In the same vein, I reject your attempts to read words into my request.
In your email of 25 January 2024, you asked me to confirm whether my request was for access to “Documents about the Commonwealth’s involvement, as a party, in the false imprisonment claims made by the applicant in the Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 case”.
No – my access request is not for documents about the Commonwealth’s involvement, as a party, in the false imprisonment claims made by the applicant in the Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 case. I have not limited my request to document about the Commonwealth’s involvement AS A PARTY to the false imprisonment claims MADE BY THE APPLICANT in the Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 case. If I wanted to limit my request to document about the Commonwealth’s involvement AS A PARTY to the false imprisonment CLAIMS MADE BY THE APPLICANT in the Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 case, I would have inspected the applicant’s PLEADINGS to first determine what claims the applicant made in respect of the Commonwealth’s involvement in his false imprisonment, and thus limited my request to what the applicant actually claimed in his pleadings.
My request was for any and all documents relating to the Commonwealth's involvement in the false imprisonment of the applicant in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020. It is either coextensive with what you have suggested or broader, but is not limited to that coextensive scope.
As I said to your colleague Sarah on 2 September 2023, please do not read words into my request that are not there. As I said to your colleague Sarah on 2 September 2023, please do not limit the scope of my request with words that are not there. As I said to your colleague on 2 September 2023, please give my FOI request the natural, reasonable and ample meaning that a reasonable speaker of the English language would give that request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s....
There has been neither rhyme nor rhythm to the correspondence I have received from the AGD over the last five months. To recap:
1. Your colleague Radia claimed, on 31 August 2023, that “the Commonwealth was not involved in the false imprisonment of the applicant during the relevant family law proceedings … because the Australian system of government is based on a separation of powers between the Legislature (the Parliament), the Executive (the Government), and the Judiciary (the Courts)”: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
2. Your colleague Radia claimed, on 31 August 2023, in the light of her amateurish attempts to educate me on Australian constitutionalism, that I needed to clarify my request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
3. Your colleague Sarah claimed, on 1 September 2023, that I had provided additional context in support of my request (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...), which I refuted: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
4. Your colleague Philip claimed, on 7 September 2023, that I had made my FOI requests on 4 September 2023, when it is plain for everybody to see that I made my requests on 30 August 2023: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
5. You acknowledged, on 8 December 2023, that the AGD received valid FOI requests on 30 August 2023, contrary to Philip’s false claims: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
6. Your colleague Philip claimed, on 4 October 2023, that the period for processing my request “has been extended by 30 days to allow the department to undertake consultation with a third party”: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
7. On 21 December 2023, you claimed that you had written to me on 14 December 2023, although it is clear that no such correspondence was sent to the email address with which the AGD was provided in respect of my FOI request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
8. On 21 December 2023, you claimed that the AGD proposed to raise enter into a formal consultation process with me on practical refusal grounds (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...), a point that I cut down to size on 23 December 2023: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...
9. Despite identifying the documents within the scope of my request, conducting third party consultations, raising the spectre of a practical refusal decision – all of which presuppose a perfectly clear FOI request capable of being understood by officials in the AGD – you now claim that you need assistance “clarifying” the scope of my request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s....
Please stop wasting my time with silly delay tactics. Please just process my FOI request according to law.
Shame on the AGD for its mishandling of my FOI request. The mishandling of my FOI request demonstrates just how “committed” the Attorney-General’s officials are to complying with an item of legislation that he is responsible for administering: www.legislation.gov.au/C2022Q00008/ - see Part 2 of the Governor-General’s Administrative Arrangements Order.
To be clear, my FOI request extends to any and all documents setting out the cost to the Commonwealth of defending the matter in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020, as it has from 30 August 2023.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Thank you for contacting the Freedom of Information (FOI) team at the
Attorney-General’s Department (the department). We get a high volume of
emails and FOI applications and work to respond as promptly as possible.
This email acknowledges your correspondence and provides some general
information in relation to FOI.
Please note that we will only respond to emails about the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). For information on how to make a
request under the FOI Act please refer to:
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protect....
For enquiries about other matters, please refer to:
https://www.ag.gov.au/about-us/connect-u...
The statutory processing time for FOI requests is 30 days, however this
may be extended if the department needs to consult third parties or for
other reasons. If you have submitted an FOI request, the department will
write to you again within 30 days of receiving your request. This
correspondence may:
* seek further information from you to help us process your request,
* provide you with a decision on your FOI request, or
* discuss whether an extension of time is needed to process your request.
Please do not send duplicate emails as this may cause delays to processing
times.
This FOI inbox is monitored business hours Monday to Friday, excluding
public holidays.
You can expect our team to provide a helpful, respectful service and we
expect respectful engagement in return.
Under s 89L of the FOI Act, disrespectful, threatening or abusive language
may be an abuse of the access action process. If this happens, we may not
be able to help you or we might take steps to manage how we communicate
with you.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us
immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any
attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute
waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the e-mail or attachments.
OFFICIAL
Dear Waldek
I am writing further to FOI request FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 which as you
know are duplicate requests and the department is processing
simultaneously. The purpose of this email is to confirm that processing of
your request has progressed but is not yet finalised. I note you have
declined to narrow the scope of the request. Due to the voluminous nature
of the request, processing of the request is taking longer than usual. I
intend to provide you with fortnightly updates moving forward via the
Right to Know email address for FOI23/463 only. Correspondence for the
request will be processed against one email address given both requests
are identical and to assist both the department and the Information
Commissioner manage your reviews.
If at any time you would like to discuss your FOI request you are welcome
to call the number below. In this case please request to be transferred to
the Freedom of Information and Privacy Team and quote reference number
FOI23/463.
Kind regards
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][email address]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
OFFICIAL
Dear Waldek
I am writing further to FOI request FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 which as you
know are duplicate requests and the department is processing
simultaneously. The purpose of this email is to confirm that processing of
your request has progressed but is not yet finalised. I note you have
declined to narrow the scope of the request. Due to the voluminous nature
of the request, processing of the request is taking longer than usual. I
intend to provide you with fortnightly updates moving forward via the
Right to Know email address for FOI23/463 only. Correspondence for the
request will be processed against one email address given both requests
are identical and to assist both the department and the Information
Commissioner manage your reviews.
If at any time you would like to discuss your FOI request you are welcome
to call the number below. In this case please request to be transferred to
the Freedom of Information and Privacy Team and quote reference number
FOI23/463.
Kind regards
Freedom of Information and Privacy
Attorney-General’s Department
T: 02 6141 6666 | E: [1][email address]
OFFICIAL
The Attorney-General’s Department may collect your personal information
where it is reasonably necessary for, or directly related to, our
functions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act) and the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect your name, email address and
telephone number so that we can contact you about your request or privacy
complaint. If your request concerns accessing or correcting your personal
information, we will collect the minimum amount of evidence necessary to
verify your identity. We hold personal information in accordance with the
Privacy Act and our privacy policy. If you have an enquiry or complaint
about your privacy, please contact the Privacy Officer on 02 6141 6666 or
via e-mail [email address].
If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by
return email and delete all copies. If this email or any attachments have
been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any
confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the
email or attachments.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Leonie,
The way that my FOI request has been processed to date is disgraceful. Please pass this email to your supervisor for consideration and response.
It has been more than half a year since I applied for access to documents. The same pathetic excuses have been advanced time after time by you and your colleagues. When will I be provided with the documents that I requested? When will I be provided with cogent reasons for decision? Why has it taken more than half a year to process my FOI request? Despite promising to do so on 22 January 2024, why have you not yet provided me with information about the categories of documents falling within the scope of my request? Despite Philip conducting third party consultations for the purposes of my FOI request in October 2023, why have you not finished processing my FOI request (spare me the nonsense about the matter being voluminous - you've had more than half a year to deal with this FOI request)?
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Leonie,
Despite promising to do so on 22 January 2024, why have you not yet provided me with information about the categories of documents falling within the scope of my request? When will you provide me with the promised information?
I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from making passive-aggressive comments like this:
"I am writing further to FOI request FOI23/463 and FOI23/500 which as you know are duplicate requests and the department is processing simultaneously. The purpose of this email is to confirm that processing of your request has progressed but is not yet finalised. I note you have declined to narrow the scope of the request. Due to the voluminous nature of the request, processing of the request is taking longer than usual."
Please do not pretend like you are doing me a big favour. If anybody is entitled to make passive-aggressive comments, I am given the hopeless way in which you and your colleagues have handled my FOI request from the first day. Do I need to remind you about Radia's duplicitous commentary?
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
Leonie,
I refer to my email of 7 March 2024. Today is 13 March 2024.
When can I expect to receive a response to my queries from your supervisor? It won't do you or your supervisor much good to ignore me.
Moreover, please do not think that you can dictate a timetable with respect to providing me with updates. Dictating that you will provide updates on a fortnightly basis, as you did in your correspondence of 6 March 2024, does not mean that you have based your dictate on law. You've just chosen an arbitrary timeframe.
I will not be dictated to by public servants who seem to think that the laws of Australia do not apply to them.
Yours sincerely,
Waldek
AGD FOI Admin left an annotation ()
This annotation has been posted by the Attorney-General’s Department to confirm that this FOI request was transferred from the Attorney-General to the Attorney-General’s Department under section 16(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 on the 15 September 2023. As this request has been transferred to another entity, no further correspondence in relation to this request will be published on this thread. The FOI request reference number for the transferred FOI request is FOI23/500 and correspondence relating to FOI23/500 is available to view at: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s....
Waldek left an annotation ()
Federal Court judgment:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/ju...