Ogawa v Attorney-General [2018] FCA 1625

Ogawa v Attorney-General [2018] FCA 1625

Discovery was ordered only for the letter concerning Dr Ogawa's petition and the letter to Mr Salvatore di Carlo because, out of caution, they appeared to have been created before the decision or gave context to material before the Attorney-General; the other requested documents were refused because they were ex...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights; Interlocutory Application for Particular Discovery / Interlocutory Application Filed on 17 October 2018 and Heard on 19 October 2018
Outcome
Interlocutory application allowed in part; unmasking refused; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['further Discovery' 'particular Discovery' 'relevance' 'application Book' 'royal Prerogative of Mercy' 'masking of Names of Public Servants']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['further Discovery' 'particular Discovery' 'relevance' 'application Book' 'royal Prerogative of Mercy' 'masking of Names of Public Servants']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights; Interlocutory Application for Particular Discovery / Interlocutory Application Filed on 17 October 2018 and Heard on 19 October 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent should give discovery and allow inspection of six documents sought by the applicant.' 'Whether documents not before the Attorney-General when the decision under challenge was made were relevant for discovery.' 'Whether masked names of particular public servants in furnished material should be unmasked.']

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery was ordered only for the letter concerning Dr Ogawa's petition and the letter to Mr Salvatore di Carlo because, out of caution, they appeared to have been created before the decision or gave context to material before the Attorney-General; the other requested documents were refused because they were ex post facto or were not before the Attorney-General when the challenged decision was made, and unmasking was refused because the names were not relevant to any ground of review.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application allowed in part; unmasking refused; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['With regard to the interlocutory application filed on 17 October 2018, the respondent give discovery to and allow inspection to the applicant of the letter to Dr Ogawa headed "Dr Megumi OGAWA – Petition for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy" to which the "Main grounds for seeking a pardon and...