For completion our constitutional challenge of section 105 of The Children and Young Person's (Care and Protection) Act 1998 was refused leave to the High Court of Australia.
1. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Bell CJ, Leeming and Kirk JJA) dismissing his appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Button J). There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal.
2. Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.
S.J. Gageler J.S. Gleeson
20 April 2023
HCA S2/2023
I note again that as previously when I made application to the High Court unrepresented ( this time I had a senior barrister and two junior barristers who offered to assist pro bono) that the High Court simply refuses leave and does not actually provide reasons to answer the application.
Previously The High Court simply stated that my argument had "no prospects of success" and on this occasion they stated "there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal".
These in my view are not reasons they are determinations, please see the application to the High Court below.
So even though the NSW Court of Appeal recognised that the law used to protect the privacy and identity of a child could have a second purpose of protecting the privacy and identity of those that remove the child, i.e the Department and OOHC, this does not mean that the provision was not directed to protecting children. This of course could easily be argued in the alternative that the provision was in fact rationally directed to protect the Department and OOHC to enable the abduction of children. This I believe is why the High Court would not hear this application.
"58. The appellants argued that the provision “can and is being used to deter persons from directly or indirectly identifying the department” and to prevent criticism of removals and of the subsequent treatment of children removed. Even if their assertion was taken as being correct,that the provision may have other effects does not mean that the provision was not rationally directed to protecting the privacy of children."
Below are copies of the High Court decision and my application to the High Court outlining the core argument that was refused without reasons being provided.
Kindest Regards & God Bless
Pastor Paul Robert Burton