Azmi and Shinde (No 2)

[2014] FamCA 827

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AZMI & SHINDE (NO. 2) [2014] FamCA 827

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Suppression Order – Application refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 102PD, 102PE, 102PF

APPLICANT: Ms Azmi

RESPONDENT: Mr Shinde

FILE NUMBER: BRC 7697 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: Order made12 September 2014; Reasons delivered 29 September 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Hogan J

HEARING DATE: 12 September 2014

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: No appearance

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Azmi & Shinde (No. 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC7679/2013

Ms Azmi

Applicant

And

Mr Shinde

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 12 September 2014, I dismissed the Applicant’s application for a decree of nullity and suppression Order. I delivered reasons orally for the dismissal of the application for nullity. These are brief Reasons for the determination to refuse to make the suppression order sought by the Applicant.

2. Section 102PE of the Family Law Act1975 provides that the Court may, by making a suppression order on grounds permitted by Part XIA of the Act, prohibit or restrict the publication or other disclosure of information:

   a)tending to reveal the identity of or otherwise concerning a party in the proceedings or any person related to or otherwise associated with any party in the proceedings;

   b)that relates to the proceedings and is information that: comprises evidence or is about evidence; is obtained by the process of discovery: produced under subpoena; or, lodged with or filed in the Court.

3. As I understood her application, the Applicant relied on the ground particularised in s 102PF(1)(c) of the Act – namely, that the Court may make a suppression order if the order is “necessary to protect the safety of any person”.

4. Other than her own evidence, there is no evidence as to the risk to the Applicant’s safety. She asserts that, because of the circumstances of her marriage to the Respondent, she may be at risk from unspecified actions of unnamed adherents to her faith if the fact of her marriage became known to them. She also asserts she would be at this risk if she travelled to Pakistan.

5. There is no evidence of her desire or intention to travel to Pakistan.

6. In deciding whether to make a suppression order I must take into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice: s 102PD of the Family Law Act 1975.

7. Having regard to this, the absence of evidence to suggest that the Applicant has faced any specific risk of harm despite the marriage having occurred more than five years ago and that the Applicant has travelled outside of Australia in the intervening period without any specified risk or threat of harm, I am not persuaded that that an order in the terms sought by the Applicant is necessary to protect the safety of any person.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Hogan delivered on 29 September 2014.

Associate:     

Date:              29 September 2014