Azad v Australian Federal Police

[1999] FCA 1500

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Azad v Australian Federal Police [1999] FCA 1500

PASTOR AZAD v AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
Q 112 OF 1999

DOWSETT J
25 OCTOBER 1999
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 112 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	PASTOR AZAD Appellant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE Respondent
JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 OCTOBER 1999
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 112 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	PASTOR AZAD Appellant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE Respondent

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	25 OCTOBER 1999
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a decision of a Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, disposing of an application to review an earlier decision by the Australian Federal Police, refusing the appellant access to certain documents.  The Deputy President examined the relevant documents in detail, together with the submissions made, and reached conclusions with respect to each of them.  Some of those conclusions resulted in the appellant having access to documents which had previously been denied him.  Others did not lead to this result.  The appellant has a right of appeal only on a matter of law.  His notice of appeal discloses no such matter.  In the course of argument, I have asked him to identify his grounds of appeal, being matters of law.  He has identified three.  The first is what he describes as "human rights" matters, alleging in some unparticularised way that concerns about human rights ground this appeal.  It is impossible to take such a general allegation any further.  The second is that the Federal Police, according to him, were - perhaps acting in concert with the Queensland Police - responsible for what he describes as an attempt on his life some years ago.  There is no evidence of this, but in any event it is not relevant for present purposes.  Thirdly, he complains that at the hearing before the Deputy President he was not given access to the affidavit of Commander Schramm, upon which the Deputy President acted in deciding this matter. 

2. A perusal of the transcript of proceedings before the Deputy President demonstrates that he was given access to that affidavit in the course of the hearing, and that he did not deny having previously had access to it. It is true, however, that he was not given access to one of the exhibits to that affidavit, ex DS7. Pursuant to s 63 of the Freedom of Information Act1982 and s 35(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal is empowered to restrict the access to exhibits to be allowed to parties.  On 24 November 1998 the Deputy President made an order restricting access to ex DS7, which order had the effect of excluding access on the part of the present appellant.  That order is not, and has not been the subject of appeal as far as I am aware; nor is there anything on its face, or in the circumstances in which it appears to have been made, which would lead to the conclusion that it was beyond power.  The position, therefore, is that the appellant is incorrect in saying that he did not have access to Commander Schramm's affidavit; he was only denied access to one part of it, and that access appears to have been denied pursuant to a power conferred upon the Tribunal.  I have had access to that exhibit.  It relates only to discussions between the Queensland Police and the Australian Federal Police as to the appropriate approach to be taken to the disclosure of documents in which they had a common interest. 

3. In the circumstances, there is no point of law raised by this appeal, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed.  I order the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:             29 October 1999

Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr M Swan
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	25 October 1999
Date of Judgment:	25 October 1999