ALLEGED MISCONDUCT PERPETRATED BY PRINCIPAL MEMBER:

Linda Pearson Page 82 NCAT 2021-2022 Annual Report

Pearson, Linda BA LLM MPP
Principal Member. Admitted as a solicitor in 1981. From 2009-2016, a Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court of NSW; 2005-2009, Senior Lecturer Faculty of Law, University of NSW. Former Judicial Member of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and Presiding Member of the Guardianship Tribunal. Currently, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Law University of NSW.

Reading Principal Member Linda Pearson’s background would lead a reasonable person to believe that m.Pearson is a highly qualified & capable legal practitioner.

This is not my experience.The conduct that m.Pearson exhibited & (alleged) blatant contempt for her statutory / legal obligations,leads me to believe that m.Pearson,like so many of her tribunal colleagues,believe themselves to be above the law and ALLEGEDLY DISHONEST / CORRUPT*

Background:

1. In Apr.2018 I made a FOI / GIPA application on the Education Minister,Robert Gordon Stokes.

Stokes & his staff refused to respond to my multiple requests (alleged OFFENCES under the GIPA Act) which forced me into an unwanted & unnecessary NCAT review (2018/000333885)

2. Due to some health / time issues I sent a request to attend the Jan.29,2019 hearing by telephone.

3. On Jan.25,2019 I received a notice from the NCAT registry:

On 25 January 2019 the following orders (and/or directions) were made (document here):
1 The request by the applicant to participate in the hearing listed at 10.00 am on 29 January 2019 is refused.
The applicant does not live in a regional area, and no reason has been provided as to why he
is unable to attend in person.
2 The request by the applicant to participate in the hearing listed at 10am on 29 January 2019 by telephone is refused.
The applicant does not live in a regional area, and no reason has been provided as to why he
is unable to attend in person.
L M Pearson, Principal Member (Legal)
Issued: 25 January 2019

4. I sent urgent email messages to the tribunal requesting reasons why I was bizarrely REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE at the hearing  IN PERSON & BY TELEPHONE

The request for reasons for CAT Act decisions is a legislative right under CAT Act Sect.62. and is supposed to ensure that the tribunal decisions are of high quality , just , fair , transparent & accountable

M.Pearson clearly made two CAT Act decisions:

  • the refusal to allow me to participate at the hearing in person
  • the refusal to allow me to participate at the hearing by telephone

5.After receiving NO RESPONSE from m.Pearson by Mar.10,2019,which is outside of the MANDATORY 28 day requirement :

I was forced to submit a formal complaint (complaint doc)

6. On Mar.27,2019 m.Pearson provided her UNPUBLISHED* “written reasons”.

m.Pearsons unpublished written reasons provided reasons for only ONE of the TWO ORDERS she made:

Decision:

The request by the applicant to participate in the
hearing listed at 10.00am on 29 January 2019 by . ·
telephone is refused.

TO-DATE,M.PEARSON HAS NOT RESPONDED TO REQUESTS FOR HER TO PROVIDE THOSE WRITTEN REASONS FOR HER ORDER:

1 The request by the applicant to participate in the hearing listed at 10.00 am on 29 January 2019 is refused.
The applicant does not live in a regional area, and no reason has been provided as to why he
is unable to attend in person.

7. DELIBERATELY CONSTRUCTING A FALSE NARRATIVE?

It is reasonable for the public to expect the highest integrity from NCAT tribunal members.

Where members demonstrate a blatant disregard for their MANDATORY OBLIGATIONS under the law it should not be unreasonable for parties such as myself to have grave fears about the integrity of proceedings where these members are deciding.

I don’t think it is reasonable that self-represented,non-legal professional such as myself are required to put up with recidivism from those same alleged unscrupulous / dishonest / morally bankrupt members in other proceedings.

Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Law University of NSW Linda Pearson allegedly chose to construct a deliberate & malicious false narrative in NCAT proceedings 2019/00103283.

In her CAT Act Sect.62 written reasons m.Pearson states:

Application for recusal
16 The applicant requested that I recuse myself from the proceedings, alleging
both actual and apprehended bias. The basis for that submission is my
previous refusal in proceedings 2018/333885 of leave for the applicant to
appear at a hearing by telephone; my inaction in responding to a request for
reasons made by email; and my breach of the obligation under s 62 of the
NCAT Act to provide written reasons on request, in those proceedings. The
applicant submits that that prejudiced his procedural rights, and demonstrates
that I am not open or accountable as required.

m.Pearson was told in no uncertain terms at the hearing that she had refused to abide by her MANDATORY OBLIGATIONS by refusing to provide those REQUIRED REASONS for proceedings 2018/000333885 (the hearing recording substantiates this)

m.Pearson allegedly deliberately & dishonestly chose to construct a narrative which omits her DELIBERATE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.

Abject (& deliberate) failure of oversight:

NCAT investigates & protects it’s own

In my experience,this is a pattern which is repeated time & time again:

  • members allegedly refuse to uphold their legal obligations
  • members allegedly ignore evidence of serious misconduct perpetrated by agency officers
  • members allegedly construct deliberately false & malicious narratives in their decisions
  • members allegedly believe themselves to be above the law

I am quite certain that my numerous formal complaints have NEVER been seriously acted on (except unless they can use my “conduct” as an excuse to dismiss the complaint)

Any response (if any) is either likely to be “complaint not supported by evidence” or deliberately fails to address all issues raised.

I allege that NCAT uses a common “baiting” tactic to inappropriately & dishonestly disregard legitimate serious complaints.

NCAT registry either:

  • WILL NOT respond to a formal complaint AND / OR
  • WILL NOT respond in a reasonable time-frame AND / OR
  • WILL NOT address EACH & EVERY ISSUE RAISED AND / OR
  • WILL NOT provide an outcome in a reasonable time

A deliberately – frustrated complainant is often advised:

Future complaint correspondence
NCAT aims to consider the substance of complaints, where it is clearly a complaint.
However, unreasonable conduct by a complainant is not conducive to the effective handling
and resolution of legitimate complaints. In line with NCAT’s Complaints Policy I am advising
you that NCAT will not continue to investigate or deal with a complaint where a your conduct
is considered unreasonable.
Unreasonable conduct may include:
(a) excessive or persistent repetition of an issue;
(b) inappropriate demands or expectations;
(c) abusive, trivial or vexatious behaviour;
(d) persistent contacting of the Tribunal or staff while a complaint is being investigated or
after an outcome has been provided..

This is somewhat ironic.

Tribunal members & GSE Act employed officers have well documented member codes of conduct / legislated conduct obligations.

Members of the public do not have such specified conduct obligations.

What is often used / abused against members of the public is a disgraceful policy developed by the NSW Ombudsman (Managing Unreasonable Conduct by a Complainant) which abjectly (& deliberately) fails to prioritise any UNLAWFUL CONDUCT being perpetrated by NSW government GSE Act employed officers.

This is best understood in that officers of the NSW Ombudsman are also GSE Act employed officers who appear to have no interest in enforcing those LEGISLATED MANDATORY CONDUCT OBLIGATIONS pursuant to GSE Act Sect.7 Government Sector Core Values against any other fellow GSE Act employed officer lest they be applied to themselves.

What is corrupt conduct?

Corrupt conduct, as defined in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (“the ICAC Act”), is deliberate or intentional wrongdoing, not negligence or a mistake. It has to involve or affect a NSW public official or public sector organisation.

*CORRUPT CONDUCT is defined by ICAC Act Sect.7,8 & 9