DSO18 v Minister for Home Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DSO18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 286

Appeal from:

DSO18 v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 1771

File number:

QUD 384 of 2019

Judge:

DERRINGTON J

Date of judgment:

27 February 2020

Catchwords:

MIGRATION – alleged breach of s 91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – appellant’s name allegedly available on Federal Court portal – data breach irrelevant to validity of decision of Immigration Assessment Authority – application for adjournment of appeal refused

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Cases cited:

EAU17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 2086

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSSJ (2016) 259 CLR 180

WZAUP v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 116

Date of hearing:

27 February 2020

Registry:

Queensland

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

13

Counsel for the Appellant:

Mr P Schipp

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr J Byrnes

Solicitor for the Respondents:

Minter Ellison

ORDERS

QUD 384 of 2019

BETWEEN:

DSO18

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	DERRINGTON J
DATE OF ORDER:	27 FEBRUARY 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application filed 26 February 2020 is dismissed.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DERRINGTON J:

1. This application was made in relation to an appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia which dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority.  When the appeal was called on, Mr Schipp of Counsel, appearing for the appellant, applied for the hearing to be adjourned to a date to be fixed and for a new timetable be set for the provision of further submissions.  Declarations were also sought.

2. As the basis for the application, it was alleged that the appellant’s name had been published on the Commonwealth Courts Portal in relation to this appeal in contravention of s 91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act), which states:

   (2)  The court must not publish (in electronic form or otherwise), in relation to the proceeding, the person’s name.

3. The application was supported by an affidavit of Mr Daniel Taylor, the solicitor for the appellant.  In it, Mr Taylor deposed that he reviewed the Commonwealth Courts Portal in relation to this appeal and identified the appellant’s name was “inadvertently” made available as “open source information” connected to the alphanumeric pseudonym in the case file number.  Counsel for the appellant submitted that the reference to the appellant’s name being “open source information” was an assertion that the information was published to the world at large.  The absence of responsive evidence from the Minister is likely accounted for by the fact that the interlocutory application was made urgently, as is understandable.  In any event, the evidence of Mr Taylor was not contradicted,…