Applicant Veal of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

Case •

[2003] FCA 657

•

9 MAY 2003

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 657

COURTS – practice and procedure – application that passages in the Court’s reasons for judgment that might reveal identity of a person giving information to the Department be excised – application refused

APPLICANT VEAL OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
V 405 OF 2002

MERKEL J
9 MAY 2003
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 405 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT VEAL OF 2002
APPLICANTS

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MERKEL J

DATE:

9 MAY 2003

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Before publishing my reasons for decision in VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 437 on 9 May 2003 I informed the parties that they could present submissions, if they so desired, about whether the publication of the reasons might reveal the identity of the author of a “dob-in letter” to which I referred at [16]-[17] of the reasons.

  2. Later on the same day the respondent applied to the court to exclude a number of references to the letter in the reasons on the ground that they might reveal the identity of the author of the letter and expose that author to “serious harm”.  In substance, the respondent contends that in a case such as the present, the court should err on the side of caution.

  3. For the following reasons I have decided not to accede to the respondent’s application.  In the usual course, the Court is open to the public, receives evidence in open court and is cautious about making orders that would produce the result that evidence is heard in closed court, and, as a consequence, is not detailed in the Court’s reasons for judgment.  It can, however, be accepted that the Court will act appropriately to protect evidence or information that is confidential.  In my reasons, I did not determine that the “dob-in letter”, or its content, was confidential information.  Rather, I found that the only information contained in the letter that was capable of constituting confidential information that could be protected in equity was information that would, or would be likely to, reveal the identity of the author.  I would add that although I made orders protecting the letter from disclosure I did so because I was prepared to accede to the submission of the parties that it was appropriate that the Court proceed on that basis.

  4. When preparing my reasons, I accepted that I should refrain from disclosing any contents of the letter that I considered would be likely to or might, as a matter of realistic possibility, reveal the identity of the author.  Thus, the only information I revealed about the letter was information that I had concluded, on the information available to me, would not be likely to reveal, and would not as a matter of realistic possibility reveal, the identity of the author.

  5. Accordingly, the application of the respondent to excise the passages requested from my reasons for judgment, is refused.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Merkel.

Associate:

Dated:  9 May 2003   

For the Applicant:

No appearance

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr J Pizer

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing:

9 May 2003

Date of Judgment:

9 May 2003
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0