Independent Children’s Lawyer and Din & Anor (No 3)

[2020] FamCA 835

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER & DIN AND ANOR (NO. 3) [2020] FamCA 835

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interim suppression order discharged – ex parte application to adjourn trial refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Independent Children’s Lawyer

FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr Din

SECOND RESPONDENT: Ms Gale

FILE NUMBER: LEC 93 of 2019

DATE DELIVERED: 15 September 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Hogan J

HEARING DATE: 15 September 2020

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Mannering, Northside Family Law Centre

COMMISSIONER FOR QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE: Ms Vassilakos, Solicitor-Advocate

FIRST RESPONDENT: No appearance

SECOND RESPONDENT: No appearance

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The interim suppression order made earlier today and then amended is discharged.

2. The issue of the response to the subpoena issued by the Independent Children’s Lawyer to Queensland Police is adjourned for hearing to 10:00 am on 21 September 2020.

3. The application of the Independent Children’s Lawyer on an ex parte basis to adjourn the final hearing of this matter is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Din & Gale has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: LEC 93 of 2019

Independent Children’s Lawyer

Applicant

And

Mr Din

First Respondent

And

Ms Gale

Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I am not persuaded to make a suppression order on a final basis.  I take into account in this decision, as I have already said in my discussion of the bases on which I was persuaded to make an interim order, that the grounds include that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.  Of course, the proper administration of justice is not confined to the proper administration of criminal justice but extends to a broader form of the administration of justice, being the proper administration of Australia’s legal processes.  In this jurisdiction I am currently engaged in the management of, and about to embark upon, the hearing of competing parenting applications - those proceedings also, of course, give rise to matters that may be encompassed by the phrase “the proper administration of justice”.

2. Having had the opportunity now - with the benefit of the protection of the interim suppression order I made earlier - to read the information provided, with that benefit, by the Commissioner, and having taken into account the evidence that is already before this Court in the proceedings on foot before it, I intend to discharge the interim suppression order made earlier.

3. That then, I think, leaves the position of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s subpoena and the answer to the same that needs to be dealt with. What I have in mind is simply adjourning over the issue of the response to the subpoena to Monday morning coming, which will give the Commissioner the opportunity to appear and be heard in relation to that issue. 

4. It probably is implicit in what I have just said that I do not intend to accede on an ex parte basis to the application made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer to adjourn the trial at this stage.  I am certainly not prepared to do so on an ex parte basis.  There are issues associated with matters that I need to consider and the exercise of my discretion, that I think the parties should appropriately be heard about in relation to what happens next for the trial. 

5. I have not been persuaded that the mere fact of the Commissioner taking an objection to the production of documents would so jeopardise the investigation, particularly given the fact of, in particular, a pretext conversation between the parents during which the mother specifically raised the allegations and sought to engage the father with them, which caused him to make a comment to ask her whether he was being recorded. 

6. I am not persuaded in these circumstances, given the historical nature of the matters also, to simply - on an ex parte basis - adjourn the proceedings listed before me to an indefinite time.

7. The issue of the response to the subpoena issue by the Independent Children’s Lawyer will be one to which I return on Monday morning at the commencement of the trial.  I am not persuaded in the circumstances that the investigation into the matters with which the Queensland Police are currently engaged will, at this stage, be so jeopardised by the fact of the Commissioner taking objection to the same. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Hogan delivered on 15 September 2020.

Associate: 

Date:              15 September 2020