The Court was asked to consider four Australian Information Commissioner decisions in reliance upon provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
In an 18 February 2011 decision the Commissioner declined to investigate Ogawa’s complaint of a breach of privacy against Dr Calvird under s 41(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) on the basis that Calvird was not in breach of that Act.
A second decision of 8 April 2011 was an internal review of the 18 February 2011 decision.
In a decision of 29 May 2013 the Commissioner declined to investigate Ogawa’s complaint of a breach of privacy against the Toowong Private Hospital - a private mental healthcare facility - under s 41(1)(a) of the Privacy Act on the basis that the Hospital was not in breach of that Act.
In a subsequent decision the Commissioner declined to investigate Ogawa’s complaint of a breach of privacy against the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions under s 41(1)(c) of the Privacy Act on the basis that over 12 months had expired since the alleged interference with her privacy.
Procedural aspects were considered in Ogawa v Australian Information Commissioner [2013] FCA 866.
In Ogawa v The Australian Human Rights Commission & Anor [2014] FCCA 358 Jarrett J stated that
This is an application filed in the Federal Court of Australia on 11 November 2013 by Dr Megumi Ogawa seeking relief against the Australian Human Rights Commission and Charles Darwin University. ... The matter was listed for directions before me today, and the parties to the application were notified of the listing.
There does not seem to be any doubt that both parties know of the listing today, first of all from the applicant’s point of view because there are a number of emails, none of which I have read but which have apparently passed between Dr Ogawa and my Associate, referrable to today’s hearing. There is also an email from the first respondent to my Associate referrable to today’s hearing. I have not read any of that correspondence, and as the parties will know, there is a protocol in place that deals with communications between parties and chambers. There is nothing to suggest that any of that correspondence was sent to my Associate with the consent of the other party to the proceedings.
The matter was listed for 9:30 am. It was called at 9:30 or thereabouts and there has been no appearance by either the applicant or the respondent. It is now about 9:57 am. There is still no appearance for the applicant or the respondent.Ogawa's application was accordingly dismissed.
In Ogawa and Queensland Police Service [2012] QICmr 34 the Queensland Information Commissioner - state counterpart of the OAIC - endorsed the refusal of access under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) to records held by the Qld Police regarding Dr Ogawa, with the Commissioner noting that Ogawa was "found guilty under the Commonwealth Criminal Code of two counts of using a carriage service to harass and two counts of threatening to kill on various dates between April 12 and May 19, 2006. The harassment and threats were directed to employees of the Federal Courts". The decision reflected Ogawa and the Department of Police [2012] QICmr 13.
In Ogawa v Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland [2012] QCAT 86 the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal endorsed the decision by the QCAT principal registrar to reject a review application by Ogawa on the ground that QCAT did not have jurisdiction to consider that application. The application sought a review of the decision by the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland under s 139 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) to reject a complaint by Ogawa on the basis that her complaint was lacking in substance.
In Ogawa v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1358 the Court dismissed Ogawa's appeal against the Federal Magistrate's dismissal in Ogawa v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FMCA 262 of an appeal against the Migration Review Tribunal decision affirming refusal by the Migration Department delegate to grant her a Student (Class TU) Subclass 574 Postgraduate Research Sector Visa. That refusal was on the basis that Ogawa did not meet the criteria of the visa.In the 2011 FMCA judgment the court indicates "The facts and circumstances enlivening judicial and media interest in the applicant are summarised in R v Ogawa [2009] QCA 307".
