See paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 in the decision my GIPA appeal against
Sydney Trains.

<http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCATAP/2021/245.html>

In 39:

"Where I give evidence about matters about which I have been informed
otherwise than by way of my direct observations and experience or review
of documentation, I state how I have become informed of these matters."

In 41:

"Ms Else asked Mr Ale about this evidence in cross-examination, he
conceded that he had relied on input from unnamed subject matter experts
in his team."

Why was the statement referred to in paragraph 39 not perjury given the
concession I obtained in paragraph 41. The concession contradicts what
was said in the statement.

I was profoundly annoyed that I was deceived into thinking the evidence
in the statement was not hearsay, and deprived of any opportunity to
subpoena the unnamed subject matter experts so as to cross-examine them.

I was even more annoyed that the Appeal Panel found nothing wrong with
this. The argument that the evidence had withstood cross-examination is
intellectually dishonest given how hard it is to cross-examine someone
who does not even understand the technical questions involved.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

> See paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 in the decision my GIPA appeal against
> Sydney Trains.

> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCATAP/2021/245.html>

> In 39:

> "Where I give evidence about matters about which I have been informed
> otherwise than by way of my direct observations and experience or review
> of documentation, I state how I have become informed of these matters."

> In 41:

> "Ms Else asked Mr Ale about this evidence in cross-examination, he
> conceded that he had relied on input from unnamed subject matter experts
> in his team."
>
> Why was the statement referred to in paragraph 39 not perjury given the
> concession I obtained in paragraph 41. The concession contradicts what
> was said in the statement.

It isn't perjury, just not doing what the legislation requires.

> I was profoundly annoyed that I was deceived into thinking the evidence
> in the statement was not hearsay, and deprived of any opportunity to
> subpoena the unnamed subject matter experts so as to cross-examine them.

> I was even more annoyed that the Appeal Panel found nothing wrong with
> this. The argument that the evidence had withstood cross-examination is
> intellectually dishonest given how hard it is to cross-examine someone
> who does not even understand the technical questions involved.

They ruled otherwise.

On 08-July-22 2:49 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>
>> See paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 in the decision my GIPA appeal against
>> Sydney Trains.
>
>> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCATAP/2021/245.html>
>>
>
>> In 39:
>
>> "Where I give evidence about matters about which I have been informed
>> otherwise than by way of my direct observations and experience or
>> review of documentation, I state how I have become informed of these
>> matters."
>
>> In 41:
>
>> "Ms Else asked Mr Ale about this evidence in cross-examination, he
>> conceded that he had relied on input from unnamed subject matter
>> experts in his team."
>>
>> Why was the statement referred to in paragraph 39 not perjury given
>> the concession I obtained in paragraph 41. The concession contradicts
>> what was said in the statement.
>
> It isn't perjury, just not doing what the legislation requires.

What he said in 39 wasn't true.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>
>>> See paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 in the decision my GIPA appeal against
>>> Sydney Trains.
>>
>>> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCATAP/2021/245.html>
>>
>>> In 39:
>>
>>> "Where I give evidence about matters about which I have been informed
>>> otherwise than by way of my direct observations and experience or
>>> review of documentation, I state how I have become informed of these
>>> matters."
>>
>>> In 41:
>>
>>> "Ms Else asked Mr Ale about this evidence in cross-examination, he
>>> conceded that he had relied on input from unnamed subject matter
>>> experts in his team."
>>>
>>> Why was the statement referred to in paragraph 39 not perjury given
>>> the concession I obtained in paragraph 41. The concession contradicts
>>> what was said in the statement.
>> It isn't perjury, just not doing what the legislation requires.
>
> What he said in 39 wasn't true.

Perjury involves a lot more than just a mis statement.

On 8/07/2022 3:07 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 08-July-22 2:49 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>
>>> See paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 in the decision my GIPA appeal against
>>> Sydney Trains.
>>
>>> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCATAP/2021/245.html>
>>>
>>
>>> In 39:
>>
>>> "Where I give evidence about matters about which I have been informed
>>> otherwise than by way of my direct observations and experience or
>>> review of documentation, I state how I have become informed of these
>>> matters."
>>
>>> In 41:
>>
>>> "Ms Else asked Mr Ale about this evidence in cross-examination, he
>>> conceded that he had relied on input from unnamed subject matter
>>> experts in his team."
>>>
>>> Why was the statement referred to in paragraph 39 not perjury given
>>> the concession I obtained in paragraph 41. The concession contradicts
>>> what was said in the statement.
>>
>> It isn't perjury, just not doing what the legislation requires.
>
> What he said in 39 wasn't true.
>

Why don't you write to the DPP and ask them to prosecute the person who
you think might have committed perjury?

Is is really perjury? The guy has made a statement about what he
generally does in relation to giving evidence. Is it perjury for him to
break that rule that he has set for himself?

Perjury is when you make a false statement about a matter that is
relevant to the proceedings. A person's statement about how he gives
evidence is not relevant to the proceedings.

On 08-July-22 7:18 pm, Max wrote:
> On 8/07/2022 3:07 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 08-July-22 2:49 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>>> See paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 in the decision my GIPA appeal against
>>>> Sydney Trains.
>>>
>>>> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCATAP/2021/245.html>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> In 39:
>>>
>>>> "Where I give evidence about matters about which I have been
>>>> informed otherwise than by way of my direct observations and
>>>> experience or review of documentation, I state how I have become
>>>> informed of these matters."
>>>
>>>> In 41:
>>>
>>>> "Ms Else asked Mr Ale about this evidence in cross-examination, he
>>>> conceded that he had relied on input from unnamed subject matter
>>>> experts in his team."
>>>>
>>>> Why was the statement referred to in paragraph 39 not perjury given
>>>> the concession I obtained in paragraph 41. The concession
>>>> contradicts what was said in the statement.
>>>
>>> It isn't perjury, just not doing what the legislation requires.
>>
>> What he said in 39 wasn't true.
>>
>
> Why don't you write to the DPP and ask them to prosecute the person who
> you think might have committed perjury?
>
> Is is really perjury?  The guy has made a statement about what he
> generally does in relation to giving evidence.  Is it perjury for him to
> break that rule that he has set for himself?

In his affidavit[*] he made that stetement about the content of the rest
of the affidavit. The statement was not true.

>
> Perjury is when you make a false statement about a matter that is
> relevant to the proceedings. A person's statement about how he gives
> evidence is not relevant to the proceedings.

If a witness stated that he was an expert, with a doctorate from
such-and-such university, but it turned out that his doctorate was fake,
and that he wasn't an expert, I think that that would be perjury.

Technically, the offence here, where there is one, is against section 71
of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.

"A person must not, in any proceedings or application to the Tribunal,
provide any information, or make any statement, to the Tribunal knowing
that the information or statement is false or misleading in a material
respect."

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caata2013326/s71.html

Lying to the tribunal about what one had for breakfast that day would
not be an offence, because it would not be material. I'd have thought
that misrepresenting the basis on which one was providing evidence would
be material.

As for writing to the DPP, I don't know that he has jurisdiction under
this act (see section 75). In any case, prosecutions for lying to courts
or tribunals are very rare. In this particular example, I'm sure it
would be claimed to be an oversight, whether or not it actually was.

Sylvia.

[*] It's actually called a witness statement, but is the same in
essence. I've used the term affidavit to avoid having to talk about a
statement containing a statement about a statement.

On Fri, 08 Jul 2022 19:18:47 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 8/07/2022 3:07 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 08-July-22 2:49 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>>> See paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 in the decision my GIPA appeal against
>>>> Sydney Trains.
>>>
>>>> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCATAP/2021/245.html>
>>>
>>>> In 39:
>>>
>>>> "Where I give evidence about matters about which I have been informed
>>>> otherwise than by way of my direct observations and experience or
>>>> review of documentation, I state how I have become informed of these
>>>> matters."
>>>
>>>> In 41:
>>>
>>>> "Ms Else asked Mr Ale about this evidence in cross-examination, he
>>>> conceded that he had relied on input from unnamed subject matter
>>>> experts in his team."
>>>>
>>>> Why was the statement referred to in paragraph 39 not perjury given
>>>> the concession I obtained in paragraph 41. The concession contradicts
>>>> what was said in the statement.
>>>
>>> It isn't perjury, just not doing what the legislation requires.
>> What he said in 39 wasn't true.
>>
>
> Why don't you write to the DPP and ask them to prosecute the person who
> you think might have committed perjury?
>
> Is is really perjury? The guy has made a statement about what he
> generally does in relation to giving evidence. Is it perjury for him to
> break that rule that he has set for himself?
>
> Perjury is when you make a false statement about a matter that is
> relevant to the proceedings.

And to be deliberately deceptive, not just mis state or err.

> A person's statement about how he gives evidence is not relevant to the
> proceedings.

Yes it is in her case.

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Max wrote
>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

>>>>> See paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 in the decision my GIPA appeal against
>>>>> Sydney Trains.
>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCATAP/2021/245.html>
>>>>
>>>>> In 39:
>>>>
>>>>> "Where I give evidence about matters about which I have been
>>>>> informed otherwise than by way of my direct observations and
>>>>> experience or review of documentation, I state how I have become
>>>>> informed of these matters."
>>>>
>>>>> In 41:
>>>>
>>>>> "Ms Else asked Mr Ale about this evidence in cross-examination, he
>>>>> conceded that he had relied on input from unnamed subject matter
>>>>> experts in his team."
>>>>>
>>>>> Why was the statement referred to in paragraph 39 not perjury given
>>>>> the concession I obtained in paragraph 41. The concession
>>>>> contradicts what was said in the statement.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't perjury, just not doing what the legislation requires.
>>>
>>> What he said in 39 wasn't true.
>>>
>> Why don't you write to the DPP and ask them to prosecute the person
>> who you think might have committed perjury?
>> Is is really perjury? The guy has made a statement about what he
>> generally does in relation to giving evidence. Is it perjury for him
>> to break that rule that he has set for himself?
>
> In his affidavit[*] he made that stetement about the content of the rest
> of the affidavit. The statement was not true.

But was not perjury, just incorrect.

>> Perjury is when you make a false statement about a matter that is
>> relevant to the proceedings. A person's statement about how he gives
>> evidence is not relevant to the proceedings.

> If a witness stated that he was an expert, with a doctorate from
> such-and-such university, but it turned out that his doctorate was fake,
> and that he wasn't an expert, I think that that would be perjury.

Only if that was deliberate.

> Technically, the offence here, where there is one, is against section 71
> of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.

> "A person must not, in any proceedings or application to the Tribunal,
> provide any information, or make any statement, to the Tribunal knowing
> that the information or statement is false or misleading in a material
> respect."

> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caata2013326/s71.html

But that doesnt make it perjury.

> Lying to the tribunal

You haven't established that he has lied. And
clearly the tribunal decided that he didnt.

> about what one had for breakfast that day would not be an offence,
> because it would not be material.I'd have thought that misrepresenting
> the basis onwhich one was providing evidence would be material.

Yes, but not perjury.

> As for writing to the DPP, I don't know that he has jurisdiction under
> this act (see section 75). In any case, prosecutions for lying to courts
> or tribunals are very rare. In this particular example, I'm sure it
> would be claimed to be an oversight, whether or not it actually was.

> Sylvia.

> [*] It's actually called a witness statement, but is the same in
> essence. I've used the term affidavit to avoid having to talk about a
> statement containing a statement about a statement.