FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
De Pyle v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] FCA 597
File number(s): QUD 375 of 2022 Judgment of: SARAH C DERRINGTON J Date of judgment: 9 June 2023 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for suppression order – whether suppression order necessary to prevent prejudice to national security – whether suppression order necessary to protect the safety of a person – whether information is in public domain Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)
s 3(1)Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AA, 37AE, 37AF, 37AG, 37AH
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.32
Cases cited: AB v CD [2019] HCA 6; 364 ALR 202
Abbey Laboratories Pty Ltd v Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority [2016] FCA 704; 245 FCR 6
Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404
Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440
Church of Scientology v Woodward (1982) 154 CLR 25
Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2012] NSWCCA 125; 83 NSWLR 52
John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465
John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) v Local Court (NSW) (1991) 26 NSWLR 131
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v District Court of NSW [2004] NSWCA 324; 61 NSWLR 344
Lee v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2023] FCAFC 22
Lleyonhjelm v Hanson-Young [2021] FCAFC 22; 282 FCR 341
Reinhart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403; 93 NSWLR 311
Richardson v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 1306
Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 36
The Country Care Group Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions(No 2) [2020] FCAFC 44; 275 FCR 377
The Food Improvers Pty Ltd v BGR Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 1394; 155 FCR 216
Division: General Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 51 Date of last submission/s: 27 April 2023 Date of hearing: 16 February 2023 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P McCafferty KC Solicitor for the Applicant: Bartley Cohen Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Berger KC with Ms F Rogers Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Intervener: Mr D Sibtain SC Solicitor for the Intervener: ABC Legal ORDERS
QUD 375 of 2022 BETWEEN: DAMIEN DE PYLE
Applicant
AND: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Interested Party
ORDER MADE BY:
SARAH C DERRINGTON J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 JUNE 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Commonwealth and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation prepare a joint draft short minute of order giving effect to these reasons by 26 June 2023.
2.The matter be listed for a case management hearing on 28 June 2023 at 9.30am.
3.There be no…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read De Pyle v Commonwealth of Australia and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] FCA 597
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether a suppression order was necessary to prevent prejudice to national security and the safety of a person. It also had to consider the implications of the information already being in the public domain. The court examined the balance between the public's right to know and the potential harm that could result from the disclosure of sensitive information. The plaintiff argued that despite the information being partially public, there were still aspects that, if disclosed, could cause significant harm. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the information was already known to the public and that any further suppression would be unjustified.
The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and concluded that a suppression order was not necessary under the circumstances. The court found that the potential harm to national security and the safety of a person did not sufficiently outweigh the public interest in the information being disclosed. Given that some of the information was already in the public domain, the court determined that a suppression order would not serve its intended purpose. The court also noted that the public's right to access information, particularly in matters of public importance, should not be unduly restricted.
The court ordered that the Commonwealth and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation prepare a joint draft short minute of order by 26 June 2023 to give effect to these reasons. The matter was listed for a case management hearing on 28 June 2023 at 9.30am. No order was made as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Commonwealth and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation prepare a joint draft short minute of order giving effect to these reasons by 26 June 2023.
2. The matter be listed for a case management hearing on 28 June 2023 at 9.30am.
3. There be no order as to costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.