Druett v Secretary, Dept Family and Community Services

[2003] HCATrans 711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S201 of 2002

B e t w e e n -

GARRY DRUETT

Applicant

and

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ
McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 13 MAY 2003, AT 2.30 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR G. DRUETT appeared in person.

MR G.R. KENNETT:   May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

GLEESON CJ:   Come and stand in front of the microphone please, Mr Druett, so that what you say can be recorded.

MR DRUETT:   I am wondering if I could possibly tender the applicant’s authorities?  There are three for the Judges, I believe.

GLEESON CJ:   Yes.  You are seeking leave to appeal against a decision of Justice Hely, is that right?

MR DRUETT:   Yes, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ:   Yes, go ahead.

MR DRUETT:   Yes, I am seeking to ask the Court to allow an appeal in relation to my children.  I guess the points that I feel is that we have suffered injustice and the due process which was some inquiry to ascertain some concerns has gone on for four or five years now.  There has been no documentation to justify their court action or the orders they have sought and I am seeking some order to try and get some reinstatement of my children through the processes.

I guess I have filed a summary of argument, your Honours, and I apologise that I am not good at articulating my point in Court but I guess I have tried to outline some of the issues and what I feel is some victimisation by the court process which was apparently done allegedly in agreement with us while they did their inquiry.  So I am just feeling that if they have no substance to their concerns, then I am asking for the High Court to allow my appeal.

If I could just draw the attention of the Court to some of the documents I have filed today.  In that I have enclosed some letters indicating the wishes of my eldest daughter, some photos of the children whilst in my care, except for one which I have indicated there, that was January 1998.  Then there has just been some general principles of concepts of some contract law in regard to misrepresentation.  Duress, we have certainly been under duress.  Basically, the concept of it, and unconscionability, I think are the points that are appropriate, that there has been some undue process in the court system.  Also, that I have never been offered any legal counsel to actually articulate or give submissions and directions to any court.

McHUGH J:   Your concern seems to be to get custody of your children, is that right?

MR DRUETT:   At least to have a level of access to my children if finances are a problem.

McHUGH J:   That is the problem, that these three cases concern very narrow legal questions and they have nothing whatever to do with the custody of your children, except in 187 of 2000, and there the Administrative Appeals Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear your appeal since the question of custody was a wholly State matter and had nothing to do with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

MR DRUETT:   I believe that my issues are relevant for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.  I have gone through the process at a State level and the difficulty there is I need consent from the administrator, from the Minister, and I cannot get representations made.  To me it is a case where I have raised concerns regarding one of my children and this is the option that they have taken, in other words, they have covered up…..  I am not saying that, but there was issues regarding my son and we were working with an agency in relation to his disabilities.

I believe that if they were looking at a respite package and decided to take another option, then that would explain the whole process.  All I can say, your Honours, I love and miss my children dearly.  I am concerned about some of the things they do to them and I would like to be involved with my children and I believe that the AAT did have the jurisdiction to make some inquiries as to the merits of the cases.

It seems to me that there may be a document on file that has led to some concerns that needs to be tested that is probably not accurate.  The Department seems to have used the Children’s Court to suppress these documents if they may exist, so I am at a loss if it has actually gone through court, through a due process of canvassing the issues.  They would be my submissions.

GLEESON CJ:   Thank you.

In this matter the applicant seeks special leave to appeal against a decision of Justice Hely of the Federal Court of Australia given on 15 May 2002.  We have given careful consideration to the written submissions made on behalf of the applicant, supplemented by his oral submissions today.  We are of the view that no reason has been shown to doubt the correctness of the decision of Justice Hely and the application must be dismissed. 

Do you seek any further order?

MR KENNETT:   Your Honour, the respondent seeks costs.

GLEESON CJ:   Did Justice Hely make an order for costs?

MR KENNETT:   I am instructed yes, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ:   Where is it, page 54?

MR KENNETT:   Yes, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ:   Thank you.  What do you have to say about that, Mr Druett?

MR DRUETT:   I do not have any comment, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ:   Thank you.  The application is dismissed with costs.

AT 2.39 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED