Re: The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia and ORS Exparte: Bastiampillai S50/1997 [1997] HCATrans 290 (17 September 1997)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S50 of 1997

In the matter of -

An application for Writs of Prohibition, Certiorari and Mandamus and an Injunction against THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondents

BRUCE HAIGH sitting as the REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

SHUNMUGAM NGANASAMANTHAM in his capacity as principal member of the REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Third Respondent

Ex parte -

CECILIA BASTIAMPILLAI

Prosecutor

KIRBY J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON WEDNESDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 1997, AT 9.32 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

_______________________

MS E.A. WILKINS: May it please the Court, I appear for the prosecutor in this matter. (instructed by Kessels & Associates)

MS S. KAVALLARIS: If the Court pleases, I appear for the first respondent. (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

MR G. PEEK: Your Honour, I appear today for the second and third respondents. (of the Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR: This matter was placed before the Court because there were presented to the Court consent orders, but it was considered appropriate to satisfy the Court that the matter was one appropriate for the making of orders. I understand that all parties are agreed that orders should be made.

MS WILKINS: Yes, your Honour, and I understand there has been an affidavit filed yesterday on behalf of the respondents.

HIS HONOUR: Perhaps you might identify that affidavit.

MS WILKINS: I think it is filed on behalf of the first respondent. It is the affidavit of Stephanie Kavallaris, affirmed on 15 September 1997.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Do you read that affidavit, Ms Kavallaris?

MS KAVALLARIS: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Very well. I will formally take that as read. Are there any other affidavits that should be read in the proceedings? There is an affidavit by the prosecutor.

MS WILKINS: Yes, your Honour. That is probably the only affidavit that would need to be read because that also annexes the affidavit of my instructing solicitor. That is the affidavit of the prosecutor sworn on 9 May 1997 which annexes all the relevant materials.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. There is an appearance, is there, for all of the respondents, there being three of them, and all of the respondents are aware of the proceedings and raise no objection to the making of the orders?

MR PEEK: Your Honour, so far as it concerns the second and third respondents, they do in fact submit to the Court's jurisdiction. Although there is in fact an appearance filed, I would seek your leave to amend that today to become a submitting appearance. I would undertake to file an appropriate notice of that in the Registry if required.

HIS HONOUR: Very well. I note that undertaking. The orders that I am asked to make are where?

MS WILKINS: Your Honour, they should have been filed, but if they are not on the file we have an original copy here.

HIS HONOUR: Perhaps you might hand that up, if you would.

MS WILKINS: Yes. They are dated 12 July 1997.

HIS HONOUR: There is no order there that the matter be reconsidered by the Tribunal or differently constituted but I take it - is that something that is not necessary to be ordered in the normal course?

MS WILKINS: First, your Honour. it is, we understand, the practice of the Tribunal to constitute itself differently in this case but, in any event, there has been a written agreement between the parties about that in correspondence. So we are not seeking any formal orders.

HIS HONOUR: Very well. I will not go into that in any greater detail.

The orders which I make, therefore, are in accordance with the minute of proposed consent orders which has been handed to the Court. I initial that document which will be placed with the papers. I certify for the legal representatives of the parties.

MS WILKINS: May it please the Court.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED