ETV17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2021] FCA 1179

ETV17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2021] FCA 1179

The application for suppression or non-publication orders was dismissed because the information in the judgment was not sufficiently specific to reveal the appellants' identities, and in any event, the appellants failed to act promptly to seek suppression for over 15 months after publication, such that any prejudice suffered was the result of their own delay. The orders sought were not 'necessary' as required under the statute.

Parties
First Appellant: ETV17; Second Appellant: ETW17; Third Appellant: ETX17; Fourth Appellant: ETY17; Fifth Appellant: ETZ17; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Immigration Assessment Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure – Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Application for Suppression/non Publication Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Suppression and Non Publication Orders, Open Justice, Protection Visas, Identification Risk, Federal Court Procedures
Administrative Law Practice and Procedure Suppression and Non Publication Orders Open Justice Protection Visas Identification Risk Federal Court Procedures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ETV17

First Appellant

ETW17

Second Appellant

ETX17

Third Appellant

ETY17

Fourth Appellant

ETZ17

Fifth Appellant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Immigration Assessment Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure – Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Application for Suppression/non Publication Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should make suppression or non-publication orders under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to prevent disclosure of pseudonyms, proceeding number and other information allegedly tending to identify the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether information in published judgments is sufficient to identify the appellants and thereby put them at risk.
  3. 3 Whether the application is disentitled by delay or failure to take prompt action.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for suppression or non-publication orders was dismissed because the information in the judgment was not sufficiently specific to reveal the appellants' identities, and in any event, the appellants failed to act promptly to seek suppression for over 15 months after publication, such that any prejudice suffered was the result of their own delay. The orders sought were not 'necessary' as required under the statute.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The appellants' amended interlocutory application filed on 14 May 2021 be dismissed.
  • The appellants pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.