Brian Joseph Chambers v James Cook University of North Queensland [1995] IRCA 460

CATCHWORDS PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PSEUDONYM - OPEN COURT - hearings in camera - orders suppressing names of complainants - importance of open justice - statutory powers to derogate from open justice - degree of derogation - complaints of sexual nature - approach in criminal jurisdictions. Industrial Relations Act (1988) ss. 373 and 480 Federal Court of Australia Act (1976) ss. 17 and 50 Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (unreported judgment of Queensland Court of Appeal dated 15 February 1993) ABC v Parish (1980) 29 ALR 228 R v Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies; Ex parte Newcross Building Society [1984] 1 QB 227 R v His Honour Judge Noud; Ex parte MacNamara [1991] 2 Qd R 86 R v Davis (unreported judgment of Full Court of Federal Court (Wilcox, Burchett and Hill JJ, dated 23 June 1995) Rockett v Smith [1992] 1 Qd R 660 BRIAN JOSEPH CHAMBERS v JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY OF NORTH QUEENSLAND No. QI 158 of 1994 SPENDER J BRISBANE 25 AUGUST 1995 CORAM: PLACE: DATE: MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ) COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. QI 158 of 1994 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) BETWEEN : BRIAN JOSEPH CHAMBERS Applicant AND : JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY OF NORTH QUEENSLAND Respondent CORAM: Spender J PLACE: Brisbane DATE: 25 August 1995 REASONS FOR THE MAKING OF PSEUDONYM ORDERS Dr Brian Chambers's employment as Senior Lecturer in Theatre at James Cook University was terminated on 2 June 1994 for alleged serious misconduct within the meaning of the Australian Universities Academic Staff Award 1988. On 10 February 1994 Judicial Registrar Boulton ordered that Dr Chambers be reinstated. By notice of motion filed on its behalf on 20 February 1995, James Cook University sought a review of that decision pursuant to s. 377(1) of the Industrial Relations Act (1988) ('the Act'). That review was set down for hearing in Townsville commencing 10 April 1995. By amended notice of motion filed 3 April 1995, the applicants on the motion for Review, the University, sought certain orders concerning the conduct of the review. It sought, inter alia, that the review be held in camera or that pseudonym orders be made to protect the identities of certain complainants. I heard submissions from the parties in relation to this motion in Brisbane on 5 April 1995 and indicated that I would consider the matter. On 7 April 1995, I ordered: " 1. At the trial, the persons identified as 'Complainant A' and 'Complainant B' in the Reasons for Judgment of Judicial Registrar Boulton given 10 February 1995 shall be identified as 'Complainant A' and 'Complainant B' respectively. 2. Any publication having the effect of identifying Complainant A or Complainant B as a witness at the trial be prohibited. 3. The publication of anything from the hearing of the trial and the contents of any material filed in these proceedings and in any previous hearing in relation to the matters the subject of the trial be prohibited to the extent that such publication might identify Complainant A or Complainant B. " I indicated that my reasons would be published separately. Following are those reasons. The amended motion filed 3 April 1995 sought the following orders: " 1. That the hearing of the application for review of the judgment of Judicial Registrar Boulton dated 10 February 1995 be conducted in camera. 2. That the identity of the persons referred to as Complainants A and B in the proceedings be prohibited from disclosure. 3. That the hearing of this matter be transferred to Brisbane. 4. Such other orders as this honourable court sees fit. " Paragraph 3, seeking a change of venue for the review, was not pursued by the University at the hearing of the motion on 5 April. The persons whose identities were sought to be protected by the use of the pseudonyms "Complainant A" and "Complainant B" or by a hearing in camera are ex-students of Dr Chambers. They lodged the written complaints of sexual harassment which eventually lead to the dismissal of Dr Chambers on 2 June 1994. It was submitted by counsel for the University that if the proceedings were not in camera or if orders were not made suppressing the identities of the complainants then there was a danger that the complainants would not comply with a subpoena to give evidence or would, if they did comply, give evidence that was less than full and frank. These concerns stemmed from the fact that the matters about which the complainants were required to give evidence were said to be of a sensitive and personal kind. The earlier proceedings in this matter before Judicial Registrar Boulton were held in camera by consent of the parties. Such a course being taken in respect of the review was resisted by the representatives of Dr Chambers. The provisions of the Act which empower the court to make the orders that were sought by the motion are s. 373(4) (which allows the court to sit in camera) and s. 480 (which allows pseudonym orders to be made). Section 373(4) provides: " The Court may order the exclusion of the public or of persons specified by the Court from a sitting of the Court if the Court is satisfied that the presence of the public or of those persons, as the case may be, would be contrary to the interests of justice. "