Castle v United States

Case [2018] FCA 1079

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Castle v United States [2018] FCA 1079

File number: VID 1415 of 2017
Judge: MORTIMER J
Date of judgment: 19 July 2018
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – request for access to documents on the Court file by a non-party – objections by applicant and first respondent in the proceeding to the release of documents – principle of open justice – no basis for the making of suppression or non-publication orders – no basis for refusing leave to access restricted documents – request for access to documents granted
Legislation:

Extradition Act 1988 (Cth), ss 19(9), 21

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 17, 37AE, 37AF, 37AG

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 91X

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 2.32

Cases cited:

Baptist Union of Queensland - Carnity v Roberts [2015] FCA 1068; 241 FCR 13

Castle v United States [2018] FCA 931

Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506

John Fairfax Group v Local Court of NSW (1991) 26 NSWLR 131

Russell v Russell [1976] HCA 23; 134 CLR 495

SRD v Australian Securities Commission [1994] FCA 549; 52 FCR 187

Date of last submissions: 11 July 2018
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 29
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent submits to any order the Court may make save as to costs

ORDERS

VID 1415 of 2017
BETWEEN:

JAMES CHRISTOPHER CASTLE

Applicant
AND:

UNITED STATES

First Respondent

JUDGE RIETHMULLER

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MORTIMER J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 JULY 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Leave is granted to Mr Tom Cowie to inspect and copy the following documents on the Court’s file for this proceeding:

(a)The reply filed by Mr Castle on 4 April 2018.

(b)The affidavit filed by the United States on 19 March 2018.

(c)The outline of submissions filed by the United States on 19 March 2018.

(d)The notice of address for service filed by the United States on 12 January 2018.

(e)The originating application for judicial review filed by Mr Castle on 22 December 2017.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR RULING

MORTIMER J:

  1. These are my reasons for a ruling in relation to a request by a non-party to the proceeding for access to court documents dated 21 June 2018.

    BACKGROUND

  2. This proceeding concerns an application by Mr Castle for review of a determination by the second respondent that Mr Castle is eligible for surrender for extradition.

  3. Mr Castle is self-represented. He is currently in custody pursuant to an order of committal made under s 19(9) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). Arrangements have been put into place with the assistance of the representatives for the United States and Corrections Victoria to enable Mr Castle to communicate effectively…

Continue reading Castle v United States

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Castle v United States [2018] FCA 1079
Case
[2018] FCA 1079
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Castle v United States, the applicant, Mr. Castle, sought access to documents in the Court file to prepare a news story for The Age. The requested documents included the reply filed by Mr. Castle, the affidavit filed by the United States, the outline of submissions filed by the United States, the notice of address for service filed by the United States, and the originating application for judicial review filed by Mr. Castle. The parties were given leave to file written submissions in relation to the request, limited to 3 pages. The United States requested that the form of access to the affidavit be limited due to the presence of diplomatic correspondence that was not to be made public without further express written authorization by the United Nations.

The court was required to decide whether to grant the journalist access to the requested documents and, if so, under what conditions. The court noted that if there had been any contact details or irrelevant personal information in the documents, it would have been prepared to consider redacting such details. However, upon review, it was found that there were none. The court also considered the principle of open justice and the potential for suppression or non-publication orders, but found no basis for such orders in this case. The court determined that there was no basis for refusing leave to access the restricted documents.

The court granted the request for access to inspect and copy the documents to be provided to the non-party who made the request. The orders in relation to documents d) and e) were not strictly necessary, but the court included them in the scope of the orders for avoidance of doubt and to recognize that Mr. Castle was informed he would be given an opportunity to be heard before any access was granted. The court did not propose to give the parties an opportunity to be heard again if further non-party requests were made for unrestricted documents, but would do so if any further requests for restricted documents were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

These are my reasons for a ruling in relation to a request by a non-party to the proceeding for access to court documents dated 21 June 2018.BACKGROUND This proceeding concerns an application by Mr Castle for review of a determination by the second respondent that Mr Castle is eligible for surrender for extradition. Mr Castle is self-represented. He is currently in custody pursuant to an order of committal made under s 19(9) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). Arrangements have been put into place with the assistance of the representatives for the United States and Corrections Victoria to enable Mr Castle to communicate effectively with the Court and the legal representatives for the United States. This matter was listed on 10 April 2018 for hearing of a preliminary objection by Mr Castle to the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court judge to make orders in respect of him under s 19 of the Extradition Act, and to the jurisdiction of this Court under s 21 of the Extradition Act. This objection was dismissed by orders made on 19 June 2018, see: Castle v United States [2018] FCA 931 (the jurisdiction reasons). The proceeding has now been listed for a hearing pursuant to s 21 of the Extradition Act. This ruling should be read with the jurisdiction reasons.REQUEST FOR ACCESS BY NON-PARTY On 21 June 2018, a request was made by a journalist from The Age newspaper to inspect and photocopy a number of documents on the Court file. The documents requested are:(a)The reply filed by Mr Castle on 4 April 2018.(b)The affidavit filed by the United States on 19 March 2018.(c)The outline of submissions filed by the United States on 19 March 2018.(d)The notice of address for service filed by the United States on 12 January 2018.(e)The originating application for judicial review filed by Mr Castle on 22 December 2017. The reason given for the request for access was as follows:I am preparing to write a news story for The Age. As the judicial review matter is closed I seek access to restricted documents.SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES On receipt of the request for access, and notwithstanding that some of the documents were ones to which a non-party might have access as of right on an application, the parties were given leave to file any written submissions that they wished to make in relation to the request, limited to 3 pages. I took that course because Mr Castle has consistently expressed views that much of the material he has relied on is “top secret” (Mr Castle’s term). The United States provided its submissions on the request for access by email dated 10 July 2018. It stated that while it had no objection to access to material being granted to the non-party media organisation, it requested that the “form of access” to the affidavit filed on behalf of the United States and affirmed on 19 March 2018, be limited. The basis for this request was that the affidavit annexes material, being diplomatic correspondence known as “notes verbale”, provided by the United Nations to Australia for official use only and marked “with the exception of the proceedings…[the note] is not to be made public in any form…without further express written authorization by the United Nations.” The United States submitted that in these circumstances “access only should be granted to the non-party to the affidavit in accordance with Federal Court Rule 2.32(4).” An excerpt of a note verbale also appears in the submissions of the United States dated 19 March 2018 (ie document c)).

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

If there had been any contact details (such as personal telephone numbers or email addresses), or irrelevant personal information (such as persons’ dates of birth or health conditions) in the documents that are the subject of the non-party request, I would have been prepared to consider redacting such details. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there are none.CONCLUSION Orders will be made for access to inspect and copy these documents to be provided to the non-party who has made the request. While orders in relation to documents d) and e) are not strictly necessary, they will be included in the scope of the orders made for avoidance of doubt, and to recognise that the Court did inform Mr Castle he would be given an opportunity to be heard before any access was granted. In relation to documents that are unrestricted, I do not propose to give the parties an opportunity to be heard again if further non-party requests are made. They will be given that opportunity if any further requests for restricted documents are made.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.