Reg v Jr

[2007] HCATrans 9

[2007] HCATrans 009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S206 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

REG

Applicant

and

JR

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 31 JANUARY 2007, AT 9.41 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant has sought special leave to appeal to this Court from orders made by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (Bryant CJ, Coleman and Boland JJ) on 27 April 2006.  That Court identified an error in one of the orders of the primary judge (Rose J) restricting the applicant from communicating with “any person”.  The Full Court discharged that order and to that extent only allowed the appeal. 

The other orders related substantially to the conditions for periodic contact between the applicant and his son, a male of seven years.  There had been much litigation over the conditions, frequency and times of contact.

The primary judge rightly held that the paramount consideration for Court, as required by s 65E of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), was the best interest of the child.

The Full Court’s attention had been drawn by the applicant to some verbal and other minor errors in the primary judge’s reasons as well as to matters not in evidence.  The Full Court was however satisfied that these, whilst regrettable, did not undermine the force and validity of the reasons overall, save in the over-reach of the one to which we have referred and which has been corrected.

Orders of the kind made here are made in the exercise of a judicial discretion.  Without in any way wishing to understate the importance of the matters in issue to the applicant, after considering carefully his submissions, we cannot be convinced that error has been shown in the approach of the Full Court or that there would be reasonable prospects that this Court would intervene and modify the orders, were special leave to be granted.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application falls to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave. I publish that disposition signed by Callinan J and myself.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED