Can you be Removed from a Courtroom and still receive a Fair Hearing?

Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163



Courtroom proceedings carry formal rules that apply to all participants, including the parties themselves. When a party repeatedly disrupts proceedings and is asked to leave, does that amount to a denial of their right to be heard? And separately, what obligations apply when lawyers or parties use artificial intelligence to prepare documents for court?

Both questions were addressed in Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163, a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

This case involved an appeal from parenting orders made by a Federal Circuit and Family Court judge. The orders were made in the absence of the Applicant, which he argued constituted a denial of procedural fairness. He also argued the orders were made in circumstances which he asserted indicated bias on the part of the primary judge.

Orders that were made include:

The case involved an appeal from parenting orders made by a primary judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court. The orders were made in the absence of the Applicant.

Orders made at trial included the preparation of a Family Report and the appointment of a single expert psychiatrist to assess the Applicant's mental health. The Applicant was also ordered to undergo urine drug screening tests. An order was made under s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) permitting the Applicant to access a lawyer funded under that scheme.

Orders for the preparation of a Family Report and a single expert psychiatrist in respect of the applicant’s mental health; and Orders made for the applicant to undergo urine drug screening tests. An order was also made pursuant to s 102NA of the Act permitting the applicant to have access to a lawyer funded by this scheme.

What Happened During The Proceedings

The matter was relisted after the Applicant failed to comply with orders for filing trial material. During the trial itself, the Applicant repeatedly interrupted both counsel and the primary judge. After a short adjournment, warnings were given that the presentation of his evidence may need to stop if the behaviour continued. When the Applicant failed to comply with those warnings, he was asked to leave the courtroom. The trial concluded in his absence.

The matter was relisted when the Applicant failed to comply with orders for filing trial material. During the trial, he also failed to follow warnings after a short adjournment. These warnings were made as he repeatedly interrupted counsel and the primary judge, who indicated that it may have been necessary to stop the presentation of the Applicant’s evidence if he was unable to comply with the warning. Due to his failure, the Applicant was

asked to leave the Court and the trial concluded in his absence.

The Appeal

The Applicant submitted that being excluded from the courtroom denied him procedural fairness. Specifically, he argued that his removal meant he lost the opportunity to conclude his cross-examination, conduct his own cross-examination of witnesses, and make oral submissions.

The Full Court rejected this ground. Applying the principles in Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, the court confirmed that procedural fairness requires that a party be given an adequate opportunity to be heard and to present their case. It does not guarantee an unlimited opportunity to participate regardless of conduct. The Applicant had been given that adequate opportunity. His removal followed repeated warnings and his own failure to comply with them.

The Applicant raised additional grounds, including that the primary judge had failed to consider his evidence and had ignored an urgent application he made. The Full Court found these grounds were not established.

Bias

The Applicant also argued that the circumstances in which the orders were made indicated bias on the part of the primary judge. The Full Court found no demonstrated basis for this assertion. This ground was not made out.

The issue of AI

Judges Aldridge, Campton & Christie also discussed the use of AI in family law proceedings. They discussed that legal professionals who use AI may be breaching their ethical obligations for example, a duty not to mislead the Court or their opponent. They stated that reliance upon unverified research generated by AI has the capacity to confuse the Court and waste time in proceedings.

What this means in practice

A party's right to be heard is not absolute. Where a party's own conduct prevents the orderly conduct of a hearing, and where adequate warnings have been given, the court may proceed in their absence without that constituting a denial of procedural fairness. The right is to an adequate opportunity to participate, not an unconditional one.

On the question of AI, the Full Court's comments reflect a position that is becoming consistent across Australian courts. Unverified AI output is not an acceptable basis for court documents or submissions. Lawyers carry professional obligations that AI tools do not discharge. Parties who prepare their own documents using AI carry the same practical risk of placing inaccurate or unreliable material before the court.

If you are considering challenging a family law decision on appeal, procedural fairness grounds require clear evidence that the opportunity to be heard was denied, not merely that the hearing did not proceed as the party expected.

Key takeaways

The takeaway from this case is that parties to proceedings are also subject to the rules of Courtroom etiquette. All parties are entitled to be heard and present their case, consistent with the principles of procedural fairness. However, difficult behaviour can significantly impact whether the Court can hear your evidence.

It also demonstrates the importance of the avoidance of AI usage, by both lawyers and clients when preparing evidence and Court documents. Doing so may see parties relying on inaccurate evidence that will hinder your case and extend it for longer than necessary.

How We can help

Parenting proceedings can become complex, particularly where mental health assessments, drug screening orders, and family reports are involved. Understanding what the court requires, and how to engage with the process effectively, can affect both the conduct and the outcome of your matter.

The Norton Law Group acts for clients in parenting disputes and family law appeals. If you are involved in proceedings and want to understand your rights and obligations, contact our team to arrange a consultation.