Epeabaka, Ex parte - Re Ruddock

[2000] HCATrans 129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M22 of 1999

In the matter of –

An application for Writs of Prohibition, Mandamus and Certiorari against PHILIP RUDDOCK, THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

DR RORY HUDSON, a (former) Member of the REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Ex parte –

FAUSTIN EPEABAKA

Prosecutor

HAYNE J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON WEDNESDAY, 29 MARCH 2000, AT 9.31 AM

(Continued from 16/3/00)

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR D.L. LUCAS:  If it please the Court, I appear for the prosecutor in this matter.  (instructed by Victoria Legal Aid)

MR R.R.S. TRACEY, QC:  If your Honour pleases, I appear on behalf of the respondent Minister.  (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR:   Now, Mr Lucas, the applicant has put on, as I understand it, amended grounds of application; there is an agreed statement facts and chronology.  Does it follow from the filing of those papers that, at least from your side of the record, all of the steps that you would want to take before hearing have now been taken?

MR LUCAS:   That would be the case, your Honour, subject to anything that might be coming out of any response that could come from the first respondent.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  But have you now, in particular, put on any and every piece of factual material that you would see as necessary for the prosecution of your claim?

MR LUCAS:   Yes, your Honour, I believe that is the case, inclusive of the prosecutor’s affidavit filed at the outset of proceedings.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Mr Tracey, what do you say the position is then?

MR TRACEY:   We say, your Honour, that the matter is ready for referral to a Full Court.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  So far as your side of the record is concerned, is all the factual material in that you would rely on?

MR TRACEY:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   And as far as you can identify, there is no controversy of fact of any kind?

MR TRACEY:   No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  In those circumstances, if I made an order under Order 55 rule 2 of the Rules, directing that the application by Faustin Epeabaka be made by notice of motion to a Full Court, adjourn this application so that notice of that application may be given accordingly, and if I were to make the costs of this application costs in the proceeding, and certify for counsel, is there any other order which, for your part, Mr Tracey, you think I would need to make?

MR TRACEY:   No, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Lucas, is there any other order that you think I would need to make?

MR LUCAS:   No, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Do we have outlines of argument, gentlemen?  Is there any further direction that I need to give about that or will not the ordinary practice direction about matters before a Full Court cut in and regulate what now happens?

MR TRACEY:   Yes, I think the practice directions will now take over, your Honour.  There will need to be such submissions but they will be able to be prepared pursuant to the practice direction.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Well, in any event, even if the practice direction may not, in terms, apply, if the parties would be good enough to treat it as applying in this matter, that will deal with the matter.  But if there is no other aspect of the matter, there will be orders in the terms I have mentioned.

MR TRACEY:   If your Honour pleases.

AT 9.35 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED