Haj-Ismail, Haydar v Madigan, Dorothy Honora

[1982] FCA 330

D I V I S I O N	G E N E R A L	1
HAYDAR H A J - I S M A I L , MONA AHDAB H A J -
I S M A I L and R O L L A H A J - I S M A I L

A p p l i c a n t s

AND :  DOROTHY HONORA MADIGAN, JOHN MENADUE

and T H E M I N I S T E R FOR IMMIGRATION AND

FPJTHNIC A F F A I R S

R e s p o n d e n t s

ORDER S

JUDGF; MAKING ORDERS: LOCKHART J.

D A T E O F O R D E R S : 10 DECEMBF:R 1 9 8 2

AT SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The C o u r t d ec l ines t o require t h e D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l of t h e

A u s t r a l i a n S e c u r i t y I n t e l l i g e n c e O r g a n i z a t i o n t o produce

f o r i n spec t ion t h e documents mentioned	i n t h e subpoena	directed
t o him i n t h i s matter.

2’.	C o s t s be reserved.
I N THF:	FEDERAL COURT O F AUSTRALIA	) 1

NEW S O U T H WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	) NO.	G .	151 OF 1982
)

G E N E R A L D I V I S I O N

BF:TWF>EN:	HAYDAR HAJ-ISMAIL,	MONA AHDAB HAJ-ISMAIL
and ROLLA HAJ-ISMAIL

Appl icants

AND :  DOROTHY HONORA MADIGAN , J O H N MENADUF: and

~ -

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AT SYDNEY

10 DF>CFdMBF:R 1 9 8 2

LOCKHART J. On 1 2 November 1 9 8 2 I gave judgment i n t h i s matter on

c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o s u b p o e n a s s e r v e d o n t h e D i r e c t o r -

General of t h e A u s t r a l i a n S e c u r i t y I n t e l l i g e n c e O r g a n i z a t i o n , A S I O ,

and t h e Commissioner of t h e A u s t r a l i a n F e d e r a l P o l i c e . Today t h e r e

i s one outs tanding matter r e m a i n i n g i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e subpoena t o

t h e Director-General of A S I O .

When giving judgment on 1 2 November I rejected a

contention advanced on behalf of the Direc tor -Genera l and the Act ing

At torney-Genera l tha t the Cour t has no power t o compel t h e D i r e c t o r -

General	to produce documents	i n	his custody and no	power	t o i n s p e c t
t h e documents	i t se l f	and	no	power	t o o r d e r p r o d u c t i o n f o r i n s p e c t i o n

by t h e p a r t i e s , b u t I said i n the cour se of my r e a s o n s t h a t it d i d not

follow t h a t I would t h e n r e q u i r e t h e d o c u m e n t s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e

subpoena directed t o t h e D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l t o be handed t o the Cour t f c

i n s p e c t i o n by it.

. . ./2

I sa id tha t ne i the r t he Ac t ing At to rney-Genera l no r t h e

Director-General	swore t h a t h e	had personally examined	the	documents
t o the p roduc t ion o f wh ich ob jec t ion	was	taken , nor	had	the documents

been iden t i f i ed wi th any p rec i s ion . I went on t o s a y t h a t t h e Act ing

Attorney-General described	them	on ly	i n g e n e r a l	terms	as	r e p o r t s o r
in format ion provided	by	o r t o A S I O ,	except	for one document	which	was
i d e n t i f i e d .

In those c i r cums tances I thought an oppor tuni ty should be

a f f o r d e d t o b o t h	t h e	Acting Attorney-General and	the	Director-General
t o r econs ide r	t h e m a t t e r ,	i n c l u d i n g t h e s w e a r i n g o f	f u r t h e r	a f f i d a v i t s .

I sa id i n t h e l i g h t of any add i t iona l ma te r i a l wh ich they may see f i t t c

p u t b e f o r e t h e C o u r t , f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n c o u l d t h e n b e g i v e n t o t h e

i n s p e c t i o n of t h e documents by the Cour t and submissions could be made

by t h e p a r t i e s and by t h e Director-General .

Today I have read two fur ther a f f idavi t s which have been

f i l e d on behalf of the respondents , and they are a f f i d a v i t s by t h e

Di rec to r -Genera l . I n t hose a f f idav i t s t he D i rec to r -Genera l swea r s

t h a t he has personally examined t h e r e l e v a n t d o c u m e n t s a n d t h a t " a l l

tha t documenta t ion when viewed as i n t e r - r e l a t e d material i s either

r e l e v a n t t o s e c u r i t y o r c o n t a i n s i n t e l l i g e n c e r e l e v a n t t o s e c u r i t y

w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h a t e x p r e s s i o n i n A u s t r a l i a n S e c u r i t y

I n t e l l i g e n c e O r g a n i z a t i o n A c t 1 9 7 9 " . H e t h e n s a y s he ma in ta ins h i s

o b j e c t i o n referred t o i n h i s e a r l i e r a f f i d a v i t sworn on 26 October 1982

H e a l so says a s t o one pa r t i cu la r documen t , name ly a copy

of a s e c u r i t y a s s e s s m e n t referred t o i n p a r a . 4 ( d ) of t h e s ta tement of

r easons	by	Dorothy Honora Madigan dated	31	August 1982,	that	he has
personal ly	examined	that	copy.	H e swears	t h a t t h a t assessment	i s a

document provided by A S 1 0 i n t h e performance of i t s func t ions under the

. . ./3

A c t , t h a t it c o n t a i n s i n t e l l i g e n c e r e l e v a n t t o s e c u r i t y w i t h i n t h e

mean ing o f t ha t expres s ion in t h e A u s t r a l i a n S e c u r i t y I n t e l l i g e n c e

Organiza t ion A c t 1 9 7 9 , and t h a t t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t would

i n h i s op in ion be c o n t r a r y t o t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n t h a t it would be

con t r a ry to the r equ i r emen t s o f s ecu r i ty , and the re fo re ob jec t s t o t h e

product ion of t h a t s e c u r i t y a s s e s s m e n t .

C o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a s made a number of submissions,

t h e p r i n c i p a l o n e s b e i n g t h o s e t h a t I w i l l now r e f e r t o . H e submits thal

the Act ing At torney-Genera l has not sworn any f resh a f f idavi t , and t h a t i

he i s t h e M i n i s t e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c o n t r o l of AS10 t h e Court should,

i n t h o s e circumstances, be more r e a d y t o i n s p e c t f o r i t s e l f t h e r e l e v a n t

documents than perhaps i t otherwise would. H e c o n t e n d s a l s o t h a t , a s t c

t h e p a r t i c u l a r s e c u r i t y a s s e s s m e n t t o w h i c h I h a v e j u s t r e f e r r e d , it i s

document which p l a i n l y was r e l i e d o n by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s i n r e l a t i o n t o

dec i s ions cu lmina t ing i n t h e d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t s b e d e p o r t e d f r c

A u s t r a l i a . T h e r e f o r e , h e s a y s , t h e l e a s t t h a t ought t o be done i n

f a i r n e s s t o t h e a p p l i c a n t s i s t h a t t h e C o u r t s h o u l d i t s e l f i n s p e c t t h e

assessment, and he has relied upon t h e f a c t t h a t a n o t h e r J u d g e of this

C o u r t i n e a r l i e r p r o c e e d i n g s i n v o l v i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t s and an earlier

depor t a t ion o rde r h imse l f i n spec ted t ha t s ecu r i ty a s ses smen t . However,

as c o u n s e l f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t s p o i n t s o u t , t h o s e were d i f f e r e n t

proceedings and the Judge d id not have before	him	a n y a f f i d a v i t s
vo ic ing any ob jec t ions	t o	the product ion of the assessment which ,of

cour se , I have.

N a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y i s , of course, by i t s v e r y n a t u r e , a

matter o f t h e h i g h e s t s e n s i t i v i t y i n t h e c o n d u c t of a N a t i o n ' s a f f a i r s a ]

a l t h o u g h t h e C o u r t s o u g h t n o t t o b e s l o w i n a p p r o p r i a t e cases t o

themselves examine documents t o t h e product ion of which objec t ion i s

. . ./4

taken by o r on behalf of A S I O , whether it should do so or no t mus t be

a matter t o b e d e t e r m i n e d i n t h e l i g h t of the c i rcumstances of each case .

I n t h i s c a s e I a m s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e o b j e c t i o n s t o

product ion tha t have been taken have been proper ly t aken . The documents

have been personally examined by the Di rec tor -Genera l of A S I O . I do not

t h i n k i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s	it	mat te rs	tha t	they	have	not	been	personal	ly
i n s p e c t e d	by	t h e Ac t ing	A t to rney-Genera l .	I ndeed ,	fo r	a l l	I	know,	t h e r e

may be very good reasons-why tha t i s so .

Accordingly, I do not propose t o o r d e r t h a t any of t h e

d o c u m e n t s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e subpoena t o t h e D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l o f AS10

be produced	t o t h e C o u r t f o r a n y p u r p o s e , i n c l u d i n g i n s p e c t i o n	by	t h e
Court .

There remains a r e l a t ed ques t ion o f d i scove ry o f t he

secu r i ty a s ses smen t t o wh ich I have r e fe r r ed . Tha t i s a document which

f a l l s w i t h i n t h e c a t e g o r y of documents the subject of the subpoena t o

t h e Director-General, and I h a v e a l r e a d y d e a l t w i t h t h a t , b u t I d e a l

now b r i e f l y w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n of o b j e c t i o n t o tha t a s ses smen t be ing

produced on discovery.

For the r easons I have a l ready g iven , I d o n o t t h i n k t h a t

t h e document i s one tha t shou ld be made t h e s u b j e c t o f p r o d u c t i o n f o r t h e

purposes of discovery, and I uphold the content ion of the Direc tor -

General of AS10 and of the Act ing At torney-Genera l in the i r ob jec t ions

t o p r o d u c t i o n	of	t h e	documents both under	the	subpoena	and	under	discover
MR.	BURBIDGF::	I would seek	tha t	your	Honour	r e s e r v e	t h e	costs of

b o t h a p p l i c a t i o n s .

MR. N E I L : I w o u l d n o t b j e c t t o t h a t .

H I S HONOUR : A l l q u e s t i o n s of costs r e l a t i n g t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r

d i s c o v e r y a n d r e l a t i n g t o t h e a r g u m e n t on the subpoenas

HIS HONOUR:

w i t h a view t o o b t a i n i n g t h e earliest p o s s i b l e

hea r ing date.