EMJ17 v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)

[2018] FCCA 724

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EMJ17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.2) [2018] FCCA 724

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for further compliance with paragraph 4 of the subpoena – whether any relevant document required to be produced to advance ground 1 – application refused.

Applicant: EMJ17

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number: SYG 3099 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 21 March 2018

Date of Last Submission: 21 March 2018

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 21 March 2018

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr S Tambimuttu
Hodges Legal

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr G Johnson

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The application for an order for further compliance with paragraph 4 of the subpoena dated 8 March 2018 is dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3099 of 2017

EMJ17

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant’s representative has asked the Court to order that there be further compliance with paragraph 4 of the subpoena on the ground that there is a reference in the email dated 15 August 2016 to torture and trauma treatment 24 months ago. Mr Tambimuttu submitted that documents relating to the history of the applicant involving torture and trauma in the context of the Primary Application and Information Service (“PAIS”) assistance scheme are relevant to the argument sought to be developed under ground 1. The documents already produced identify the applicant asserting a history of torture and trauma in relation to the PAIS assistance scheme.

2. It is not apparent to the Court why further production in those circumstances should be ordered, as any argument to be advanced can be advanced on the material presently before the Court. Further, the material on its face would not materially alter the identification of the alleged history of torture and trauma that is identified on page 3 of the case plan document and the reference already made to torture and trauma treatment 24 months ago. In those circumstances, the Court is not satisfied that there is any further relevant document that is required to be produced in order for the applicant to be able to advance the applicant’s arguments in respect of ground 1.

3. Further, the Court has been informed by the first respondent that the steps that have been taken so far are not ones in respect of which there was a time limitation, but rather that the relevant officer has left the department and that the steps taken to date to identify the material have not identified any other material relating to the assessment. For that further reason, the Court refuses the application to require further compliance with paragraph 4 of the subpoena.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate:

Date:  23 April 2018