WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

PARTIES MARIA LETIZIA JONES

APPLICANT

-v-

Commissioner of Police

RESPONDENT

CORAM Chief Commissioner A R Beech

 Commissioner S Wood

 Commissioner S M Mayman

HEARD Tuesday, 19 December 2006, Friday, 11 August 2006, Tuesday, 28 November 2006, Thursday, 12 October 2006

DELIVERED Wednesday, 20 December 2006

FILE NO. APPL 44 OF 2006

CITATION NO. 2006 WAIRC 05858

CatchWords New evidence sought to be tendered – some documents giving particulars  – some unrelated to grounds of appeal - Police Act, 1892 s.33R(3) and (4)

Result Leave to tender new evidence granted in part

Representation 

Applicant In person

Respondent Ms D Scaddan, of counsel

Reasons for Decision - New Evidence

1         THE COMMISSION:  Ms Jones has sought to tender new evidence in her appeal.  The new evidence is contained in two lever arch files containing documents numbered 1-377.  It was agreed that the only documents which could constitute new evidence were documents numbered between 275-377.  This decision therefore relates only to those documents. 

2         The Commission indicated a preliminary view regarding each of those documents and then gave Ms Jones, who is representing herself and Ms Scaddan, representing the Commissioner of Police, an opportunity to address the Commission on any of those documents individually.  What follows are the Commission’s reasons for allowing some of the documents as new evidence pursuant to section 33R(3) and (4) of the Police Act, 1892 and for rejecting others.  What follows is a list of those documents where leave is granted, and a list of those where leave is not granted, together with a brief statement of our reasons for so doing.

3            Document number where leave is granted:

 275: Medical Report:  We consider this relevant to the ground “Commissioner of Police disregarded…Doctor’s reports”.  We consider it may materially have affected the Commissioner of Police’s decision to take removal action; we note that the date of document is after removal from office.

 276: Medical Report: We consider this relevant to the ground “Commissioner of Police disregarded…Doctor’s reports”.  We consider it may materially have affected the Commissioner of Police’s decision to take removal action; we are not clear whether Ms Jones was aware of the document and had reasonable access prior to the removal from office.

278: Progress Medical Certificate: We consider this relevant to the ground “I also have extended medical evidence…” We consider it may materially have affected the Commissioner of Police’s decision to take removal action; we are not clear whether Ms Jones was aware of the substance of the evidence and had reasonable access to it prior to removal from office.

279: This document appears to particularise medical benefits for purposes of the remedy sought.  We are cautious at this early stage of the proceedings but consider it helpful in the interests of justice to grant leave.

282: This document appears to particularise loss for the purposes of remedy sought.  We are cautious at this early stage of the proceedings but consider it helpful in the interests of justice to grant leave.

286: This document appears to particularise Ms Jones’s final payment for the purposes of relief sought.  We are cautious at this early stage of the proceedings but consider it helpful in the interests of justice to grant leave.

290: Payment Summary: This document appears to particularise the claim for the purposes of the appeal.  We are cautious at this early stage of the proceedings but consider it helpful in the interests of justice to grant leave.

293: This document appears to particularise leave taken.  We are cautious at this early stage of the proceedings but consider it helpful in the interests of justice to grant leave.

297: Letter regarding medical claim forms and expenses and forms PB3: We consider this may be relevant to the ground of appeal regarding approval of a “2000 work-related claim”; considered in the interests of justice; we consider it likely that Ms Jones was aware of the substance of the new evidence and had reasonable access to it before her removal from office. 

4            Document number where leave is not granted:

277: A medical form which Ms Jones describes as one of which she was refused a copy.  We consider that as it is not a WA Police document and was not able to be supplied to her by the Commissioner of Police that it cannot go to show that her removal by him was harsh, oppressive or unfair.

280: This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

281:  This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

283:  This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

284:  These documents are not relevant to a ground of appeal.

285: This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

287:  This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

288: This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

289: This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

291: This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

292: This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

294: This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

295: This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

296: This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

298: This document is not relevant to a ground of appeal.

 299-377: These documents are not relevant to a ground of appeal.

5            We do not propose at this stage to issue an order reflecting this decision.  However, we will do so if requested by either party.