FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v MZYLF [2011] FCA 1211
Citation: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v MZYLF [2011] FCA 1211 Appeal from: MZYLF v Minister of Immigration and Citizenship and Anor [2011] FCA 621 Parties: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP v MZYLF and PETER GACS IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER File number: VID 961 of 2011 Judge: NORTH J Date of judgment: 25 October 2011 Date of hearing: 20 October 2011 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 4 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr S Donaghue Solicitor for the Appellant: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the First Appellant: Mr R Niall SC Solicitor for the First Appellant: Victorian Legal Aid Counsel for the Second Appellant: The second respondent did not appear
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 961 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
AppellantAND: MZYLF
First RespondentPETER GACS IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 OCTOBER 2011
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant pay for the costs of a video link of the hearing of the appeal so that the first respondent is able to participate in Darwin in the hearing of the appeal to be conducted in Melbourne.
2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 961 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
AppellantAND: MZYLF
First RespondentPETER GACS IN HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
NORTH J
DATE:
25 OCTOBER 2011
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The first respondent seeks an order that the appellant, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the Minister), pay for a video link between Darwin, where the first respondent is detained, and Melbourne, where the appeal brought by the Minister is to be heard.
This appeal is to be heard together with the appeal in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v MZYLE (VID 960 of 2011). For the purposes of the hearing of that appeal MZYLE, the first respondent in that appeal, successfully applied for an order that the Minister pay for the video link between Darwin and Melbourne: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v MZYLE [2011] FCA 1210 (MZYLE).
The facts relevant to the determination of this application are not materially different to the facts relevant to the determination made in the application in MZYLE. One difference is that in the present case there is no evidence that the first respondent suffers symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as there was in MZYLE. That difference is not determinative.
For the reasons given in MZYLE, particularly at [21], [22] and [23] to [31], there will be an order in this appeal that the Minister pay for a video link between Darwin and Melbourne for the hearing of the appeal. The Minister must pay the first respondent’s costs of the application.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North. Associate:
Dated: 25 October 2011
- AGLC
- Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v MZYLF [2011] FCA 1211
- Case
- [2011] FCA 1211
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal should be heard in Melbourne or Darwin, given the respondent's location and the potential impact on his ability to participate in the hearing. The court had to consider the respondent's right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and the practicalities of conducting the hearing in either location. The court also had to consider the costs associated with each option and the potential impact on the administration of justice.
In delivering its judgment, the court held that the appeal should be heard in Darwin so that the respondent could participate in person. The court found that the respondent's right to a fair hearing outweighed the convenience of the appellant and the potential costs associated with conducting the hearing in Darwin. The court also found that the appellant should bear the costs of a video link of the hearing so that the respondent could participate in Darwin and the costs of the application. The court's decision was based on a balance of the respondent's right to a fair hearing, the practicalities of conducting the hearing in either location, and the costs associated with each option.
The court ordered that the appellant pay for the costs of a video link of the hearing of the appeal so that the respondent is able to participate in Darwin in the hearing of the appeal to be conducted in Melbourne and that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the application. The court's orders were made pursuant to Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appellant pay for the costs of a video link of the hearing of the appeal so that the first respondent is able to participate in Darwin in the hearing of the appeal to be conducted in Melbourne.
2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.