EHA19 v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)

In EHA19 v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2), the applicant sought suppression orders in relation to a judgment delivered in open court. The application was made to Judge Street of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The core of the dispute concerned the applicant's desire for non-publication of the judgment at a high level, despite the judgment itself not identifying the applicant by name or publishing their name in contravention of section 91X of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The proposed consent orders were submitted to the Court without specifying the statutory basis upon which they were sought.

The Court was required to determine the significance of the term 'publish' in the context of court judgments and the Court's powers regarding the publication of its decisions. This involved considering the statutory framework governing the publication of judgments and reasons, particularly in light of the applicant's request for suppression.

Judge Street dismissed the application, reasoning that the Court's powers concerning the publication of judgments and reasons are primarily governed by section 75 of the *Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999* (Cth). This provision outlines the circumstances under which reserved judgments and reasons may be made public by a judge, emphasising the public interest in the efficient administration of justice through the publication of oral and written reasons in open court. The Court noted that once reasons have been published, there is no power to republish them. The decision underscored the distinction between publishing orders and publishing reasons, and the statutory encouragement for efficiency through the publication of oral reasons in open court.

The application in a case filed on 9 June 2020 was dismissed by order of the Court on 19 June 2020.