Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SDAS v Minister For Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 96
SDAS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS S 95 OF 2002 O'LOUGHLIN J 28 MARCH 2002 ADELAIDE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 95 OF 2002
BETWEEN: SDAS
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J
DATE OF ORDER: 28 MARCH 2002
WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. There be no order as to costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 95 OF 2002
BETWEEN: SDAS
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J
DATE: 28 MARCH 2002
PLACE: ADELAIDE
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I have before me an application which was filed as a matter of urgency earlier today. In it, the applicant seeks an order that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister") be ordered to permit the applicant's lawyers to have access to and to remain at the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre. The nature of the application so made is, in effect, an application for a mandatory injunction. It seeks an order of the court directing the Minister to do something which the Minister, through his delegates and agents, is not otherwise prepared to do. 2 The background to the application has been provided through the annexures to the affidavit of Mr Jeremy James Moore, the solicitor for the applicant. That background commences with a letter from his firm dated 26 March 2002 to the manager of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Department"). The letter is entitled "Access to the Woomera Detention Centre" and it confirms the advice that an associate of Mr Moore had earlier received to the effect that lawyers would be denied access to the centre over the Easter weekend because only essential staff would be present. The letter was in the nature of a complaint about that decision and the letter pressed for a change of arrangements so that a team of lawyers, interpreters and para-legals would be able to access detainees for the purposes of conferring with them, tendering legal advice and taking instructions. A reply was sent by facsimile transmission on the same date, 26 March, and I think it is essential that I should read into the transcript the entirety of the contents of that transmission: "As you are aware there are major demonstrations planned in the Woomera area over the Easter period. There are clear indications from several groups involved in the demonstration that they intended to pursue a course of civil disobedience and disrupt the operations of the Centre. These activities pose a serious risk to the security and good order of the facility. It has been decided for operational reasons that all legal visits will not be permitted at the centre from close of business Thursday 28 March 2002 to 0800 hours Tuesday 2 April 2002. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me."
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate