Ruhani v Director of Police (through the secretary of Justice as Director of Public Prosecutions)

[2005] HCATrans 653

[2005] HCATrans 653

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Canberra  No C8 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

MOHAMMAD ARIF RUHANI

Appellant

and

DIRECTOR OF POLICE (THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

Respondent

Publication of reasons for decision

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 31 AUGUST 2005, AT 10.19 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GLEESON CJ:   This matter was heard in Canberra on 10 November 2004 by a Court constituted by Justices McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon and myself.  On 9 December 2004 the Court ordered that the objection to competency be disallowed and reserved all questions of costs. 

I publish my reasons for joining in the order disallowing the objection to competency.  For the reasons given by Justices Gummow and Hayne, I agree in the orders they propose respecting the motion for joinder and the costs of that motion and the objection to competency.  I also publish Justice McHugh’s reasons for disallowing the objection to competency and his reasons in relation to the motion for joinder and the matter of costs.

GUMMOW J:   Justice Hayne and I also joined in the disallowance of the objection to competency.  We would make the following orders respecting the objection to competency and the motion for joinder:

1.        Motion seeking joinder of the Republic of Nauru and the Commonwealth of Australia dismissed;

2.        The appellant pay the costs of the respondent to the motion;

3.        The respondent pay the costs of the appellant of the objection to competency;

4.        The costs provided in orders 2 and 3 be set off.

I publish those joint reasons.

KIRBY J:   I too join in the order of the Court dismissing the respondent’s objection to the competency of the appellant’s appeal, but I would order, in the motion, that the Commonwealth of Australia be joined as a party to the proceedings and that the Commonwealth should pay the appellant’s costs of the objection to competency on an indemnity basis, with credit for costs recovered by the appellant from the respondent.  I publish my reasons.

CALLINAN J:   Justice Heydon and I would have upheld the objection to competency and we would have ordered that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the objection.  We would also have dismissed the notice of motion filed by the appellant on 7 December 2004 and would have ordered that the respondent pay the costs of the motion.  I publish our joint reasons.

GLEESON CJ:   The orders of the Court are:

1.        Motion seeking joinder of the Republic of Nauru and the Commonwealth of Australia dismissed;

2.        The appellant to pay the costs of the respondent of the motion;

3.        The respondent to pay the costs of the appellant of the objection to competency;

4.        The costs provided for in orders 2 and 3 be set off.

I publish those orders.

AT 10.21 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED