The Australian Border Force has rejected claims by Melbourne racing car driver Greg Holloway that he has been detained unlawfully more than 30 times at Australian airports since 2011 for interrogation, questioning, searching, X-raying and luggage testing.
Holloway has taken the matter to the supreme court, and is seeking aggravated and exemplary damages. His statement of claim alleges the actions by the officers constituted false imprisonment and were unlawful because the officers “exceeded the statutory power authorised” by legislation.
“On each of these occasions the plaintiff has been released from questioning without charge, investigation or any subsequent action being taken,” court documents state.
“As a result of the alleged conduct, the plaintiff claims that the commonwealth has caused him loss or damage including loss of liberty for extended periods, fear, anxiety and panic attacks, and loss of income and opportunity relating to his business interests. The plaintiff seeks both aggravated and exemplary damages.”
Holloway, who is also a businessman, has also requested all documents relating to him held by Australian Border Force be handed over. Last week, Victorian supreme court judge John Dixon formally ordered the commonwealth to release most of the requested materials to Holloway, including CCTV footage and documents relating to his being detained and questioned.
Dixon rejected the commonwealth’s claims that the documents could not be released for security reasons.
“I am persuaded that the forensic interests of the plaintiff in this information are legitimate and the claim of the commonwealth to secrecy or confidentiality in respect of identification information if not non-existent, is weak,” Dixon found.
“As such, the public interest in preserving secrecy in identification information is incapable of outweighing the public interest in the due administration of justice.”
He also refused to redact the names of officers from most of those documents, finding: “The fact that ABF [Australian Border Force] officers work in controlled areas at airports is irrelevant. As asserted by the plaintiff, so do AFP [Australian federal police] members and authorised contractors, none of whom have a basis upon which to assert immunity in relation to their identity.
“I consider the claim that immunity should be granted because there is an increased prospect that, if identified, ABF officers may become involved in, or recruited for, involvement in illegal behaviour is a nonsense.”
The commonwealth has denied Holloway’s allegations, in particular that he was unlawfully detained.
A spokesman for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection told Guardian Australia that despite being ordered to hand over documents to Holloway, the department “does not accept the claims that have been made and will be defending this matter before the supreme court”.
“As the query relates to a matter which is subject to court proceedings, no further comment is appropriate at this stage,” he said.
The spokesman would not confirm if the materials had since been given to Halloway.
The case continues.
