A federal court judge has excoriated the Australian government, accusing it of putting its relationship with Nauru ahead of complying with court orders and federal law.

The judgement by Justice Debra Mortimer was published on Friday, after the government failed to comply with a 14 June order to transfer a refugee with “serious medical and psychiatric issues” to Australia under the medevac laws.

The transfer was approved by the Australian government but held up by the Nauru government’s requirement for multiple levels of approval, which were then delayed for this man’s case.

“The respondents [the immigration minister and the commonwealth of Australia] have already made it abundantly clear they do not intend to take any further steps, if those steps could adversely affect the commonwealth’s relationship with Nauru,” Mortimer wrote.

Peter Dutton's move to abolish medevac regime delayed by Senate inquiry Read more

“They have already made it clear they consider they have done all they are prepared to do. It is not that they have taken all the steps within their power, but they have done all they are prepared to do, taking the context of their relationship with Nauru into account.”

Mortimer ordered the Australian government to explicitly set out what steps “if any” it has taken to secure the man’s transfer from Nauru, and to provide the names of those who caused or contributed to the delay.

Australia’s medevac laws require the government to transfer refugees and asylum seekers to Australia for medical treatment if two doctors determine it is necessary and it is not available on Manus Island or Nauru.

However Nauru, which has also banned telemedicine consultations, requires all medical evacuation requests go through the notoriously problematic Overseas Medical Review (OMR) process, and get “uplift approval” from a senior bureaucrat.

“At one level, responsibility for the applicant’s transfer having not been effected lies principally with the government of Nauru,” said Mortimer.

“At another level, the responsibility for the applicant’s transfer having not been effected lies with the respondents, who have, on the evidence:

formed a view that they need to defer to the government of Nauru by not engaging in any conduct which they apprehend might lead to criticism or complaint from the government of Nauru, or which might cause the transfer of the applicant to be further impeded; and

chosen to give preference to an approach which places the commonwealth’s relationship with Nauru ahead of the steps both the first respondent … and this court … have determined to be necessary to undertake for the applicant’s health and welfare.”

The transfer of the refugee, in his mid 30s, was approved on two separate occasions by the department of home affairs – first under the original processes and again in late June under the medevac laws.

The transfer had been referred to the OMR by Australia’s healthcare contractor, International Health and Medical Services (IHMS), in mid June, but it was not addressed at the next OMR meeting on 13 June. The next meeting a fortnight later then held over the decision because it wanted another medical assessment, and delayed their decisions to 11 July.

IHMS told the department it gave the OMR committee “a comprehensive and appropriate clinical briefing” but didn’t hand over the medical reports provided by two doctors under the medevac laws because it would be counterproductive.

A branch commander within the home affairs department, Peter Timson, told the court that to upset the Nauruans could impede further transfers, and it was therefore “essential … that Australia retains and builds upon its strong working relationships with Nauruan officials”.

This included respecting the Nauruan government’s procedural requirements and not transferring anyone without their desired approvals, and for Australia courts to not make any orders which “appear to be premised on the notion that the Australian government controls what happens on the ground in Nauru”.

For similar reasons the Australian government also sought to have an affidavit from the department’s regional processing assistant secretary, Alana Sullivan, suppressed, suggesting to the court that the contents of it would cause Nauruan officials “significant embarrassment” if made public.

Mortimer declined the government’s application but gave it leave to withdraw the affidavit from its file and no longer rely on it as evidence if it wanted.

She said if the government wanted the court to “step back” from making any further orders in this case then it should do so “openly”.

“[N]ot by reliance on evidence that is hidden from public scrutiny, even when it may tend to reveal the very difficult situation the respondents now find themselves in because the commonwealth chose to enter into arrangements of the kind set out in the MOU [memorandum of understanding] and the administrative arrangements with another sovereign state.”