NBRQ and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application by NBRQ (the Applicant) to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a direction under section 35 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) to suppress the publication of the Tribunal's decision. The Applicant sought either anonymisation of the decision or redaction of specific sensitive information to protect her privacy and prevent harm to herself and her children. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Respondent) contended that there was no basis for such orders, asserting the norm of public hearings and the importance of open justice.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the circumstances warranted a departure from the general norm of publishing AAT decisions, as established by section 35 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the Applicant's submissions that the disclosure of certain deeply traumatic and confidential information, relating to her marriage and the alteration of her birth certificate, would cause significant harm to her and her children if the decision were publicly accessible. The Tribunal also had to weigh these concerns against the Respondent's argument that the principle of open justice required a departure from this norm only in exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal considered its own Non-Disclosure Guideline, which provides guidance on the disclosure of personal information in published decisions. This guideline acknowledges that sensitive information, such as details relating to children or family violence, may be included in reasons for decision and requires members to exercise particular care in deciding whether its inclusion is necessary. The Applicant argued that anonymising her name and redacting specific traumatic details would not prejudice public confidence in the administration of justice, but rather enhance it by demonstrating that privacy and autonomy are maintained when individuals engage with legal processes. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant's contention was that the harm to her and her children from the public disclosure of this sensitive information outweighed the norm of publication.

The Tribunal granted the application, making a direction under section 35 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) to suppress the publication of the Applicant's name and certain sensitive details within the decision. The Tribunal found that the considerations of preventing harm to the Applicant and her children outweighed the norm of publication established by section 35 of the Act.