IN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VI A_ DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION No. VG 305 of 1991 ~~ SS ww BETWEEN: HELL'S ANGELS MOTORCYCLE CLUB INCORPO Applicant - and = THE HONOURABLE M. DUFFY, ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent - and - THE HONOURABLE G.L. HAND, STATE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRAT LOCAL RNMENT AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Second Respondent Coram: Black C.J. Place: Melbourne Date: 18 November, 1991. EX _TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application by the applicant in matter VG No. 305 of 1991, Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club Incorporated, that I should exercise the power conferred by s.20(1)(a) of the Federal Court Act 1976 to order that the matter be heard by a Full Court. This application relates to a second application before me, which is that the matter should be heard at the same time and before the same justices who will hear the expedited appeal in matter VG No. 302 of 1991. -2- That appeal will now be heard on 25 November, and the Court has allocated, if necessary, 2 days for the hearing. The estimate of the parties is that the hearing will occupy a day- and-a-half and that estimate seems to be accurate, but only on the basis that the parties put their arguments concisely and that there are, to some extent in any event, written submissions. The substantive application in matter VG No. 305 of 1991, raises several very important issues and I would be satisfied that it is a matter of sufficient importance to justify the giving of a direction that it be heard by a Full Court if that were otherwise appropriate. However, as Mr. Graham Q.C. for the respondents points out, the power under s.20(1)(a) is discretionary and one of the factors that has to be taken into account in the exercise of that discretion is whether it is practicable for a matter to be heard by a Full Court. There would be little point in having a matter heard by a Full Court, urgently, so that it might be heard at the same time as another matter, if there would not be sufficient time available, either to the parties or to the Court, to deal with either matter in the way in which, having regard to its importance and complexity, it ought to be dealt with. I would wish, as I indicated to the parties, that the Court should hear all matters in controversy between them as quickly as possible, and resolve them. However in my view, the -3- estimate of Mr. Graham that the duration of the hearing, if both matters were heard by a Full Court at the same time, would be something of the order of 4 days - I think he said 4 to 5 days, but at least 4 - is closer to the mark than the extra half-day or so which was the estimate given by Mr. Rose who appeared with Mr. Bell for the applicant corporation. In saying that, I know that neither counsel will feel offended because it is difficult to estimate how long a hearing will take, but my judgment is that the complexity of the new application (VG No. 305 of 1991) is such that a hearing of both matters would take considerably longer than the time originally set aside for the hearing of the expedited appeal in VG 302 of 1991. Now, the point is that both matters are complicated and obviously require careful consideration. If they are heard together, even assuming that the Court was able to do so at such short notice, it would be inevitable that some additional time would pass before the Court could give its decision, and it seems to me that that would risk defeating the purpose of the expedited appeal in the first matter, that is to say, matter VG 302 of 1991. I should also note that although the applicant, Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club Incorporated, apprehends that the Minister will make a declaration in respect of the corporation under the newly proclaimed Migration Regulations (Amendment) 1991, the Minister has not done so, whereas there is of course an -4- unquestionably live issue in relation to the Minister's appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Olney in matter VG 302 of 1991. In these circumstances, I consider that, as a matter of discretion, I ought not to exercise, at least at this stage, the power conferred by s.20(1)(a) of the Federal Court Act 1976. I say "at this stage" because, as I have indicated, the matter is of importance and I am not able to say if and how circumstances may change. It seems to me that the best thing to do in all the circumstances is to proceed, as the Court has indicated it will, with the hearing of the appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Olney. Accordingly, the first application in the notice of motion is dismissed, as is the second. In dismissing the first application, it will be apparent from what I have said that it is dismissed on the material before the Court at this time and in the circumstances revealed by that material. I propose in all the circumstances to reserve the costs of the application. I will otherwise adjourn the application in VG No. 305 of 1991 until 10.00 a.m. on Monday, 25 November in Melbourne for directions. I certify that this and the preceding four (4) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice agk. Associate: