Perez v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2002] FCA 195

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Perez v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 195

GEORGE HECTOR PEREZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 1332 of 2001

ALLSOP J

SYDNEY

7 MARCH 2002


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1332 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

GEORGE HECTOR PEREZ
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MARCH 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT

1.Presently declines to make an order for the production of the applicant by the Silverwater Metropolitan Regional Remand Centre.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1332 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

GEORGE HECTOR PEREZ
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE:

7 MARCH 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. A request has been made in this matter by the applicant, Mr Perez, for an order directed to those in charge of Silverwater prison to produce him to Court when this matter is called on for hearing on Thursday 14 March 2002.

  2. It is unnecessary to describe in any great detail Mr Perez’s case.  It is sufficient to say that he is now being held in a maximum security facility pending execution of a deportation order.  This state of affairs has obtained for some considerable time.

  3. Mr Perez is a national of Cuba.  He was convicted of a serious criminal offence in this country.  It was an offence involving violence.  On the basis of that conviction the Minister has ordered his deportation.

  4. The difficulty the Minister faces and the difficulty that Mr Perez faces is that the country of his nationality, Cuba, hitherto has not been willing to receive him back.  Thus, Mr Perez has languished in detention for a significant period of time after the conclusion of his sentence.

  5. Mr Perez is represented.  Mr Jackson, of counsel, appears for him.  Mr Jackson informs me that there will be no occasion for Mr Perez to give affidavit or oral evidence.  Mr Jackson also informs me that he does not perceive the likelihood of any need for instructions from Mr Perez on the day of the hearing.

  6. One further matter which should be noted is that Mr Perez has on one occasion escaped or attempted to escape from Long Bay gaol. 

  7. Mr Jackson, on behalf of Mr Perez, put to me that it was important that Mr Perez see the process which was dealing with such an important matter for him.  Mr Jackson submitted that this should outweigh the inconvenience to the Court involved in the necessary security arrangements.

  8. I am fully aware that the matter is of great significance to Mr Perez.  He is presently deprived of his liberty in a foreign country with no end to the detention in sight.  It does not need to be stated that all involved in these proceedings, including the Court, are fully aware of their importance to Mr Perez.  Mr Perez can be assured that the gravity of his position and the importance of the result of the matter to him are considerations of which the Court is fully aware.

  9. Mr Perez has, if I may say so, competent legal representation.  There is no necessity for his participation in the proceedings by way of evidence or instructions.  It is not a matter of mere convenience for the Court or the saving of expense.  The Federal Court facilities are not well designed for the reception, and presence, of maximum security prisoners, beyond occasions on which such presence is essential.  I must take account of the safety of the public.

  10. In these circumstances, and given Mr Perez’s record, in particular the fact that he has on one occasion sought to escape from custody, I do not propose to make any order requiring those in charge of the facility at Silverwater to bring him to Court.

  11. If at any time the matter proceeds in such a way as to make his presence necessary, this decision can be reviewed.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop.

Associate:

Dated:             7 March 2002

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C. Jackson
Solicitor for the Applicant: Macquarie Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 4 March 2002
Date of Judgment: 7 March 2002
Details
AGLC
Perez v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 195
Case
[2002] FCA 195
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia considered the application of George Hector Perez, a Cuban national detained in Australia, who sought an order for his production to the court. Perez was in maximum security detention at Silverwater Metropolitan Regional Remand Centre awaiting deportation, which could not proceed due to Cuba's refusal to accept him. Perez argued that his presence in court was necessary to understand the proceedings concerning his significant case. However, Justice Allsop declined to order his production, citing security concerns and the unlikelihood of Perez needing to give evidence or instructions. The court recognised the importance of Perez's case but prioritised public safety and the adequacy of court facilities for handling maximum security prisoners. The decision was made with the understanding that it could be reviewed if Perez's presence became necessary at a later stage.

The legal issue before the court was whether to order the production of George Hector Perez to the Federal Court despite his status as a maximum-security detainee at Silverwater prison. Perez's argument was grounded in the significance of the case for his personal liberty and the need to understand the proceedings. The court was required to balance Perez's right to participate in his case with the safety and practicality concerns arising from his high-security status. Perez's past attempt to escape from custody further complicated the decision. The court needed to determine if the potential benefits of Perez's presence in court outweighed the security risks and logistical challenges.

Justice Allsop concluded that the Federal Court was not well-equipped to handle the presence of maximum-security prisoners, particularly given Perez's history of attempting to escape from custody. The court emphasised that the decision was not based on mere convenience or cost-saving but on the paramount need to ensure public safety. Although acknowledging the significance of Perez's case, the court found that there was no necessity for Perez to be present in court, as his legal representation was competent and there was no requirement for him to give evidence or instructions. Consequently, the court declined to order his production, reserving the right to review the decision if circumstances changed.

No specific orders were made by the court in this instance. However, the decision leaves room for future review should the circumstances of the case change, potentially necessitating Perez's presence in court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.