FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wilkes v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 156
NATIVE TITLE – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – claim to restrict evidence.
RICHARD WILKES AND ALBERT CORUNNA ON BEHALF OF THE DARBARLYUNG NYOONGARS OF THE DERBAL YERRIGAN AND THE SWAN RIVER PLAINS, ROBERT CHARLES BROPHO ON BEHALF OF THE SWAN VALLEY NYUNGAH COMMUNITY, WILLIAM WARRELL ON BEHALF OF THE WARRELL FAMILY, GREGORY LAWRENCE GARLETT AND KELVIN PATRICK GARLETT ON BEHALF OF THE GARLETT FAMILY AND CORRIE CHRISTOPHER BODNEY ON BEHALF OF THE BODNEY FAMILY BALLARUKS V STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND ORS
NO. WAG 142 OF 1998
NO. WAG 141 OF 1998
NO. WAG 137 OF 1998
NO. WAG 138 OF 1998
NO. WAG 139 OF 1998
NO. WAG 140 OF 1998
NO. WAG 149 OF 1998
NO. WAG 143 OF 1998
NO. WAG 6128 OF 1998
NO. WAG 6159 OF 1998
NO. WAG 6239 OF 1998
NO. WAG 6283 OF 1998BEAUMONT J
5 MARCH 2003
PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
WAG 142 OF 1998
WAG 141 OF 1998
WAG 137 OF 1998
WAG 138 OF 1998
WAG 139 OF 1998
WAG 140 OF 1998WAG 149 OF 1998
WAG 143 OF 1998
WAG 6128 OF 1998
WAG 6159 OF 1998
WAG 6239 OF 1998WAG 6283 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
RICHARD WILKES AND ALBERT CORUNNA ON BEHALF OF THE DARBARLYUNG NYOONGARS OF THE DERBAL YERRIGAN AND THE SWAN RIVER PLAINS
FIRST COMBINED APPLICANTSROBERT CHARLES BROPHO ON BEHALF OF THE SWAN VALLEY NYUNGAH COMMUNITY
SECOND COMBINED APPLICANTSWILLIAM WARRELL ON BEHALF OF THE WARRELL FAMILY
THIRD COMBINED APPLICANTSGREGORY LAWRENCE GARLETT AND KELVIN PATRICK GARLETT ON BEHALF OF THE GARLETT FAMILY
FOURTH COMBINED APPLICANTSCORRIE CHRISTOPHER BODNEY ON BEHALF OF THE BODNEY FAMILY BALLARUKS
BODNEY APPLICANTSAND:
STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND ORS
RESPONDENTSJUDGE:
BEAUMONT J
DATE OF ORDER:
5 MARCH 2003
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.In respect of the hearing on Rottnest Island on 6 March 2003, MAKE orders, until any further order, as follows:
(a)Only the following may be present at the hearing: The Judge and Court staff, the applicants other than Mr Bodney, legal representatives, the transcript recorders and such other persons nominated by counsel in court on 5 March 2003.
(b)The transcript of the evidence, and the audio and electronic records of the evidence from which the transcript is made, are to be separate from the general transcript and records and the transcript is to have a cover sheet clearly marked “restricted evidence”, and the date of the hearing. Such transcript, which must not be transmitted or otherwise dealt with by e-mail, is to be printed on paper of a colour different from that of the general transcript, but paginated chronologically with the general transcript. Save for the copies for the Court and for each person entitled to be present at the hearing of the evidence (which copies will be numbered by a Court officer and the name of the recipient recorded) no copies are to be made of the transcript.
(c)The evidence given must not be divulged to any person not entitled to be present at the hearing of the evidence, and must not be used for any purpose except for this proceeding or any appeal.
2.In respect of the other sites specified in “MFI 2”, make orders as in 1, above, save that the words “other than Mr Bodney” are to be deleted.
3.Liberty to apply.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
WAG 142 OF 1998
WAG 141 OF 1998
WAG 137 OF 1998
WAG 138 OF 1998
WAG 139 OF 1998
WAG 140 OF 1998WAG 149 OF 1998
WAG 143 OF 1998
WAG 6128 OF 1998
WAG 6159 OF 1998
WAG 6239 OF 1998WAG 6283 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
RICHARD WILKES AND ALBERT CORUNNA ON BEHALF OF THE DARBARLYUNG NYOONGARS OF THE DERBAL YERRIGAN AND THE SWAN RIVER PLAINS
FIRST COMBINED APPLICANTSROBERT CHARLES BROPHO ON BEHALF OF THE SWAN VALLEY NYUNGAH COMMUNITY
SECOND COMBINED APPLICANTSWILLIAM WARRELL ON BEHALF OF THE WARRELL FAMILY
THIRD COMBINED APPLICANTSGREGORY LAWRENCE GARLETT AND KELVIN PATRICK GARLETT ON BEHALF OF THE GARLETT FAMILY
FOURTH COMBINED APPLICANTSCORRIE CHRISTOPHER BODNEY ON BEHALF OF THE BODNEY FAMILY BALLARUKS
BODNEY APPLICANTSAND:
STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND ORS
RESPONDENTS
JUDGE:
BEAUMONT J
DATE:
5 MARCH 2003
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR RULING
(ON CLAIM TO RESTRICT EVIDENCE)BEAUMONT J:
The applicants other than Mr Bodney applied to restrict evidence to be given at the sites (“the Sites”) specified in “MFI 2”, which is annexed to these reasons, so as to exclude Messrs Bodney, Miller and Yarran from hearing that evidence.
Earlier today, I made these interim orders:
1.In respect of the hearing on Rottnest Island on 6 March 2003, MAKE orders, until any further order, as follows:
(d)Only the following may be present at the hearing: The Judge and Court staff, the applicants other than Mr Bodney, legal representatives, the transcript recorders and such other persons nominated by counsel in court on 5 March 2003.
(e)The transcript of the evidence, and the audio and electronic records of the evidence from which the transcript is made, are to be separate from the general transcript and records and the transcript is to have a cover sheet clearly marked “restricted evidence”, and the date of the hearing. Such transcript, which must not be transmitted or otherwise dealt with by e-mail, is to be printed on paper of a colour different from that of the general transcript, but paginated chronologically with the general transcript. Save for the copies for the Court and for each person entitled to be present at the hearing of the evidence (which copies will be numbered by a Court officer and the name of the recipient recorded) no copies are to be made of the transcript.
(f)The evidence given must not be divulged to any person not entitled to be present at the hearing of the evidence, and must not be used for any purpose except for this proceeding or any appeal.
2.In respect of the other sites specified in “MFI 2”, make orders as in 1, above, save that the words “other than Mr Bodney” are to be deleted.
3.Liberty to apply.
These are my reasons for these orders.
On behalf of the applicants other than Mr Bodney, prima facie evidence has been give to the effect that each of the Sites is “sacred”; that the explanation of their significance to the Noongar people from certain specified areas is something kept in the confidence of those people; that it is part of the law and custom of those people that only certain elders have authority to permit others to enter such sacred “Sites”; and that if Messrs Bodney, Yarran and Miller, who are said to be from other areas, were present at the giving of the evidence proposed at the Sites, each would be at risk of suffering an illness.
By s 82(2) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) the Court “may take account of the cultural and customary concerns of Aboriginal peoples ... but not so as to prejudice unduly any other party to the proceedings”.
By s 17(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), except where authorised by, inter alia, s 17, the Court’s jurisdiction shall be exercised in open court. By s 17(4), the Court may order the exclusion of the public, or of specified persons, where satisfied that their presence would be contrary to the interests of justice.
By s 50 of the Court’s Act, the Court may, inter alia, make orders restricting the publication of particular evidence “as appears to the Court to be necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice ... .”
As the Full Court observed in considering a similar question in WA v Ward (1997) 145 ALR 512, several competing interests need to be taken appropriately into account in making, as in this case, advance interim orders to protect information claimed, albeit only prima facie, to be of a confidential character.
As mentioned in argument, it appears that the present application has a dual aspect; that is, not only to protect a confidence, but also to protect it from, in particular, those other members of the Noongar people said to be from other specified areas who, in the case of Mr Bodney is prosecuting, as an unrepresented party, his own native title claim, or in the case of Messrs Miller and Yarran, are objecting to the Combined Peth Metropolitan claim.
Putting aside for the moment the position of Rottnest Island where Mr Bodney makes no claim, it seems to me inevitable that, as an unrepresented party, he should be permitted to be present at each of the other sites as a necessary incident of providing him with an adequate opportunity to be heard in his own cause. I can see no alternative, in principle, or in practice.
At the same time, I am not persuaded that Mr Bodney’s presence at the Rottnest Island explanatory evidence can be seen, from my present perspective, to be necessary in order that he might properly be able to prosecute his own claim. It is possible that this perspective could change once the Island evidence is given, in which event the interim orders could be revisited in that light.
As unrepresented opponents rather than unrepresented proponents of a claim, Mr Miller and Mr Yarran are in a position which differs from that of Mr Bodney. From my present perspective, that is, in advance of the giving of the evidence, I am of the view that the prima facie confidential character of the explanatory information should, at this stage, be given more weight than the (as yet undefined) interests of Messrs Miller and Yarran in opposing the claims. Again, their position may be reviewed after the evidence on any of the Sites is given.
I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Beaumont. Associate:
Dated: 5 March 2003
Counsel for the First Applicants: Mr P Kennard Solicitor for the First Applicants: SWAL&SCAC
Solicitor for the Bodney Applicants:
Mr Bodney appeared in person Counsel for the State of Western Australia: Mr S Wright Solicitor for the State of Western Australia: Crown Solicitors Office, Western Australia Counsel for Commonwealth of Australia: Mr A Beech Solicitor for Commonwealth of Australia: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for various local government bodies and some mining interests: Ms A Vivian Solicitor for various local government bodies and some mining interests: Minter Ellison Counsel for WAFIC: Mr M McKenna Solicitor for WAFIC: Hunt & Humphry Counsel for Group 15 in WAG 142/98 and Group 12 in WAG 149/98: Mr K Jagger Solicitor for Group 15 in WAG 142/98 and Group 12 in WAG 149/98: Freehills Counsel for Town of Bassendean & others (various local government bodies): Mr P Wittkuhn Solicitor for Town of Bassendean & others (various local government bodies): McLeods Counsel for South West Aboriginal Land & Sea Corporation: Mr M Rynne Solicitor for South West Aboriginal Land & Sea Corporation: SWAL&SCAC Date of Hearing: 5 March 2003 Date of Orders: 5 March 2003 Date of publication of Reasons for Judgment: 5 March 2003
- AGLC
- Wilkes v State of Western Australia [2003] FCA 156
- Case
- [2003] FCA 156
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed restrictions on the evidence were justified and, if so, to what extent. The legal issues included whether the cultural sensitivity of the evidence warranted restrictions on its use and disclosure, and if such restrictions would comply with the principles of open justice and fairness. The court also needed to balance the rights of the native title claimants to protect their cultural heritage with the public's right to access information in judicial proceedings.
The court found that the evidence in question did indeed contain sensitive cultural information that, if disclosed, could cause significant harm to the native title claimants and their community. The court recognised the importance of protecting the cultural heritage of the claimants and weighed this against the principles of open justice. The court concluded that the restrictions on the evidence were necessary to protect the cultural integrity of the claimants and ordered that the evidence be treated as restricted, with stringent controls on its use and disclosure. The orders included limiting the presence of certain individuals during the evidence hearing, segregating the restricted evidence from the general records, and prohibiting the dissemination of the evidence outside the immediate proceedings. These measures aimed to ensure the cultural information remained protected while still allowing the court to conduct a fair trial.
The court's orders reflected a careful balance between the protection of cultural heritage and the principles of open justice. The final orders specified detailed measures to ensure the restricted evidence was handled appropriately, maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the sensitive information while allowing the legal process to proceed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. In respect of the hearing on Rottnest Island on 6 March 2003, MAKE orders, until any further order, as follows:
(a) Only the following may be present at the hearing: The Judge and Court staff, the applicants other than Mr Bodney, legal representatives, the transcript recorders and such other persons nominated by counsel in court on 5 March 2003.
(b) The transcript of the evidence, and the audio and electronic records of the evidence from which the transcript is made, are to be separate from the general transcript and records and the transcript is to have a cover sheet clearly marked “restricted evidence”, and the date of the hearing. Such transcript, which must not be transmitted or otherwise dealt with by e-mail, is to be printed on paper of a colour different from that of the general transcript, but paginated chronologically with the general transcript. Save for the copies for the Court and for each person entitled to be present at the hearing of the evidence (which copies will be numbered by a Court officer and the name of the recipient recorded) no copies are to be made of the transcript.
(c) The evidence given must not be divulged to any person not entitled to be present at the hearing of the evidence, and must not be used for any purpose except for this proceeding or any appeal.
2. In respect of the other sites specified in “MFI 2”, make orders as in 1, above, save that the words “other than Mr Bodney” are to be deleted.
3. Liberty to apply.
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
Established by: BEAUMONT J
Full text does not contain this section.