Al-Dmour v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors

[2018] HCATrans 196

[2018] HCATrans 196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S98 of 2018

B e t w e e n -

MOHAMMAD MAJED NAYF AL‑DMOUR

Plaintiff

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Defendant

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Defendant

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Third Defendant

BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON WEDNESDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2018, AT 9.44 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR M.M.N. AL-DMOUR appeared in person.

MR G.J. JOHNSON:   If the Court please, I appear for the first defendant Minister.  (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

MAY DABLIZ, affirmed as interpreter:

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  Now, Mr Johnson, might I just inquire, I have two sets of written submissions filed on behalf of the first defendant.  The first were filed on 21 September and the second on 24 September.  Is there a material difference?

MR JOHNSON:   One moment, if I could, your Honour.  Your Honour, there was at the last minute, on 21 September, a rush to meet the deadline for the filing of the submissions.  I was not aware that anything had been filed on that date but the copy that I have is stamped 24 September.  To the extent there are two copies, there would not be any difference between the two.

HER HONOUR:   I thought not.  Thank you, Mr Johnson.  Mr Al‑Dmour, the Minister has filed submissions.  Have you received a copy of those submissions?

MR AL-DMOUR (through interpreter):   No, your Honour, I did not receive any copies but I am asking if it has been sent by email or by post.

HER HONOUR:   I will just make an inquiry about that, Mr Al‑Dmour.

MR JOHNSON:   Your Honour, I am instructed that a copy of the written submissions were sent by email to Mr Al‑Dmour, first on 21 September then again on 24 September, and a letter was sent to him on 24 September serving him with a hard copy of those submissions.

HER HONOUR:   Mr Johnson, the hard copy was sent by mail?

MR JOHNSON:   That is correct.

HER HONOUR:   On what date?

MR JOHNSON:   On 24 September.  I do appreciate, that is only two days ago.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  I do not believe one can make any assumption about the hard copy having been received.  I will just take the matter up with Mr Al‑Dmour.  Mr Al‑Dmour, I am told by counsel that you were sent by email copies of the Minister’s submissions.

MR AL-DMOUR (through interpreter):   Your Honour, I lost my phone and now I have a new phone.  I tried to open my old email but I cannot remember my password so it is a problem for me.  Even though the hard copy that it has been said that it has been sent by the post, every day I check my mail.  I did not receive anything.

HER HONOUR:   What are we to do, Mr Johnson?

MR JOHNSON:   It may be a difficulty for the plaintiff to comprehend in any meaningful way the submissions if they are interpreted to him now this morning.  In other courts, that is a procedure that sometimes takes place to ensure that an unrepresented participant has a notice of what is being said in the submissions.

HER HONOUR:   An alternative might be, Mr Johnson, how are you placed next Thursday?

MR JOHNSON:   If I could consult my ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Or, indeed, any date that suited your convenience next week, Mr Johnson.

MR JOHNSON:   Yes.  On Thursday, 1 November ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   I was looking – have I got my dates wrong?  No, I was looking to the week beginning 1 October.

MR JOHNSON:   I am sorry, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   So, the 1st itself is a public holiday but any date that week that suited you and your instructing solicitor, Mr Johnson.

MR JOHNSON:   Yes.  Well, I can indicate to your Honour that I am available on 3 October, on the Wednesday, and in the afternoon on the Thursday.

HER HONOUR:   I am told that there is already – arrangements have been made for an audio visual link in another matter on the morning of the 3rd but did you say ‑ would the afternoon suit you, Mr Johnson?

MR JOHNSON:   The afternoon on the 3rd.

HER HONOUR:   Perhaps if you would just like to check with Mr Markus if it suits him?

MR JOHNSON:   Yes.  Yes, the afternoon of the 3rd would be convenient, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Very well.  Mr Al‑Dmour, what I propose to do is to adjourn this proceeding ‑ if you wish me to do that ‑ to enable you to obtain a copy of the submissions which the Minister has filed and have them translated so that you understand the matters that the Minister is relying on in support of the Minister’s submission that I should dismiss your application.

MR AL-DMOUR (through interpreter):   Yes, your Honour.  No problem with an adjournment.  Thank you.

HER HONOUR:   I want to be quite clear, Mr Al‑Dmour, so you understand that what the Minister is asking me to do is to dismiss your application on the next occasion when you come back before the Court, which it is suggested a convenient date would be next Thursday, that is 3 October, at 2.00 pm in this Court.  I said Thursday and I was mistaken.  The matter is to be stood over to 2.00 pm on Wednesday of next week, 3 October.

MR AL-DMOUR (through interpreter):   Yes, your Honour.  Thank you.

HER HONOUR:   That date is suitable to you, Mr Al‑Dmour?

MR AL‑DMOUR:   Yes.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, very well.  I will stand the matter over to 2.00 pm on Wednesday, 3 October next.

MR AL-DMOUR (through interpreter):   Sorry, your Honour, like, I will be provided by copies from the Minister representative?

HER HONOUR:   Yes, a copy will be provided to you.

MR AL-DMOUR (through interpreter):   Thank you very much, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Would you adjourn the Court please.

AT 9.54 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED