Crosse v Negus

[2012] FCA 182

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Crosse v Negus [2012] FCA 182

Citation:		Crosse v Negus [2012] FCA 182
Parties:		TYRONE CROSSE v TONY NEGUS (SUED IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE) and COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
File number:		VID 1431 of 2011
Judge:		NORTH J
Date of judgment:		27 January 2012
Date of hearing:	27 January 2012
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	6
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr K Farouque of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr G Livermore
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr D Poulton of Minter Ellison

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION	VID 1431 of 2011

BETWEEN: TYRONE CROSSE
Applicant

AND:

TONY NEGUS (SUED IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE)
First Respondent

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:	27 JANUARY 2012
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Until further order, no person shall publicly disclose the contents of:

1.1.the seventeenth and eighteenth words of paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim in this proceeding dated 12 December 2011 (Statement of Claim);

1.2.the twenty-seventh to twenty-ninth words inclusive of the particulars appended to paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim;

1.3.the twenty-ninth to thirty-second words inclusive of the first paragraph of particulars appended to paragraph 15 of the second paragraph of the Statement of Claim;

1.4.the second paragraph of the particulars appended to paragraph 15 of the Statement of Claim; and

1.5.the eighth, and twenty-seventh to thirty-first words inclusive of the third paragraph of particulars appended to paragraph 15 of the second paragraph of the Statement of Claim;

all of which have been redacted in the copy of the Statement of Claim annexed to this order (the Redacted Statement of Claim).

2.Until further order, only the Redacted Statement of Claim be publicly searchable on the file of the Court and a copy of this Order be attached to the Redacted Statement of Claim which is placed on the Court's file.

3.Each of the original unredacted Statement of Claim and the confidential affidavit of Shane Patrick Connelly sworn on 26 January 2012 be placed on the Court's file each in a sealed envelope marked "Confidential - Not to be disclosed without an order of the Docket Judge".

4.A copy of this order is to be served on:

4.1.The applicant, through his solicitors, Maurice Blackman Lawyers.

4.2.The Age Company Pty Ltd, Fairfax Media Limited and Mischa Merz by email transmission to their Solicitors, Minter Ellison, at [e-mail].

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION	VID 1431 of 2011

BETWEEN: TYRONE CROSSE
Applicant

AND:

TONY NEGUS (SUED IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE)
First Respondent

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE:	27 JANUARY 2012
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Before the Court is an interlocutory application filed on 27 January 2012, by the respondents, Tony Negus (in his capacity as the Australian Federal Police Commissioner) and the Commonwealth of Australia (the Commonwealth). The application seeks orders pursuant to ss 17(4), 23 and 50 of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) and r 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) preventing the public disclosure of certain parts of two paragraphs of the statement of claim in this proceeding.

2. An affidavit in support of the application, filed by Paul Christopher Barker, explained that The Age newspaper intends to publish an article tomorrow, Saturday 28 January 2012, generally concerning the case brought by the applicant, an Air Security Officer, against the respondents. In his statement of claim, the applicant alleges that the respondents, amongst other things, took adverse action against him because he complained about the safety implications of a procedure that was introduced for Qantas domestic flights.  In a confidential affidavit, affirmed by Shane Patrick Connelly, an Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, reasons are given why certain references in [13] and [15] of that statement of claim, if disclosed, might prejudice public safety and Australia’s security interests.

3. The Court always acts with a high degree of reluctance in preventing the operation of justice in the open and in full view of the public.  However, it is accepted that there are some circumstances in which it is necessary to limit public disclosure of matters before the Court.  Those circumstances include where the disclosure of information might prejudice the safety of the public or Australian security interests. 

4. Fairfax Media Limited, which publishes, among other newspapers, The Age, appeared at the hearing of the application, and following discussions with the Commonwealth, did not oppose the orders sought.

5. The terms of the limitation on publication which are sought by the respondents are very confined and limited specifically to words which would provide certain useful information to people interested. 

6. I am satisfied, from the affidavit of Mr Connelly, that disclosure of the limited references in [13] and [15] of the statement of claim might prejudice public safety and Australian security interests.  Further, the orders are suitably confined.  They will not restrict the publication of general information about the legal action which the applicant is taking against the respondents in this Court.  

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.

Associate:

Dated:       2 March 2012