GGD18 and Ors v Minister for Home Affairs and Anor (No.2)

[2019] FCCA 443

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GGD18 & ORS v MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS & ANOR (No.2) [2019] FCCA 443

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Request by the applicant to cross-examine – whether utility in permitting cross-examination on the ground identified – request refused.

First Applicant:

Second Applicant:

Third Applicant:

GGD18

GGE18

GGF18

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: IMMIGRATION ASSESMENT AUTHORITY

File Number: SYG 3351 of 2018

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 26 February 2019

Date of Last Submission: 26 February 2019

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 26 February 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr J Williams

Solicitors for the Applicants: Nikjoo Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr B Kaplan

Solicitors for the Respondents: HWL Ebsworth

ORDERS

1. The request for cross examination of Katia Viera-Platero is refused.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3351 of 2018

GGD18

First Applicant

GGE18

Second Applicant

GGF18

Third Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Mr Williams of counsel has indicated he wishes to cross-examine the deponent, Katria Viera Platero for the purpose of further agitating the issue as to whether the applicant entered a migration zone earlier than that of Christmas Island. The request for cross-examination in that regard is so that the applicant can identify whether there may be grounds upon which the applicant should amend. The Court made orders as earlier identified in its earlier ruling on the document that Mr Williams sought to produce that it was not relevant.

2. The pleading in ground 3 makes an express assertion of where the applicants arrived being Christmas Island. I do not regard the agitation of that issue in those circumstances as giving rise to any relevant issue.  There is no other alleged earlier place of a migration zone at which the applicants arrived. In those circumstances, the Court is not satisfied that the cross-examination is relevant or would be of any utility. This Court has control over its Court processes. The Court is satisfied that there would be no utility in permitting cross-examination on the ground identified.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate: 

Date:  28 March 2019