Women invasively strip searched by Qatar Airways lodge appeal, lawyer slams airline’s ‘drip-feed’ approach

A lawyer representing a group of women who failed in their bid to sue Qatar Airways over invasive and degrading strip searches has raised a critical point.

A barrister representing five women who tried to sue Qatar Airways over invasive and degrading strip searches at Doha Airport has attacked the “drip-feed” approach of the airline, questioning how the case could be dismissed with “unsatisfactory” evidence.

The comments emerged during an appeal hearing lodged by the group of women – who sued Qatar Airways, the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) and airport operations company MATAR for damages – on Monday some four years after the October 2020 incident sparked international outrage.

On the evening of October 2 that year, a newborn baby was discovered inside a rubbish bin in a cubicle at Doha’s Hamad International Airport.

The discovery sparked an investigation by police from the Ministry of Interior of Qatar (MOI) in an attempt to locate the baby’s mother.

The group of five women sued Qatar Airways after they were subjected to degrading strip searches in October 2020 after a newborn baby was discovered inside a toilet cubicle at Hamad International Airport. Picture: AFP

The five women were on-board a Qatar Airways flight from Sydney to Hamad International Airport when police ordered all women on the flight to disembark.

Four of the women were required to undergo “intimate and invasive” medical examinations – conducted by a nurse in an ambulance on the tarmac – to determine if they had just given birth.

They sued Qatar Airways, the QCAA and MATAR for damages over alleged “unlawful physical contact”, false imprisonment and assault – alleging the QCAA owed a duty of care to avoid them suffering harm while on the premises of Doha Airport.

Last year, the Federal Court dismissed the women’s application.

During an appeal hearing on Monday, the court was told the ambulance incidents were “compensable” under the Montreal Convention 1999.

Barrister Christopher Ward SC said a suggestion there was a “lack of evidence” against nurses being under the supervision of MATAR was wrong.

Dr Ward said it was apparent Qatar Airport staff “knew what was happening” well before the aircraft’s pushback and return on the night.

“The evidence in this case is so far not started, let alone incomplete,” he told the court, noting much of the evidence so far had come from affidavits filed by the applicants.

The women argued they were subjected to false imprisonment and assault as a result of being ordered off their plane and subjected to the medical examinations, but their claim was dismissed by the Federal Court in 2024. Picture: AFP

“There is, as of yet, no true evidence before the courts.”

Dr Ward referred to Qatar Airways “resisting” the production of some evidence, including statements from the prosecution’s office in Qatar that were discovered in local press reporting.

He told the court it was not a case of the women being “voluntary parties” or responsible for what happened.

“These events happened … where they were under the control of the airway, they were subject to direction and control,” he said.

“They did as they were told. It appears what occurred in Qatar was unlawful.

“That doesn’t change much, but it does mean the resistance to production of what actually occurred is significant.

“It is clear there is a treasure trove of material available in Qatar, likely but not certain to be under control of MATAR.”

The court was told one of the women escorted off the plane by an air hostess questioned if it was a “hostage situation” or “terror attack”.

She was told not to be scared by the same hostess, Dr Ward said.

Footage of the moments immediately after a newborn baby girl was found at Qatar’s main airport. Picture: Doha News Exclusive

Dr Ward told the court there was a significant, substantial and material prejudice to the applicants who were “shut out” of the court’s interlocutory process that would “allow production of the trove of documents” related to the case.

“The decision has proceeded on an unsatisfactory assumption … on an unsatisfactory evidentiary basis,” he said.

The court was told the respondents were denying access to much of the material in a “drip-feed” manner.

Dr Ward said there were “substantial” questions of fact at the heart of the matter, including the level of knowledge held by employees or officers of the airline and MATAR.

Bret Walker SC, representing Qatar Airways and MATAR, said the only issue with the appeal was whether Justice John Halley erred in his application of the exclusivity principle against the airline.

This principle relates to part of the Montreal Convention 1999. which prevents any claim being brought in tort or negligence.

“His Honour was completely correct – no error is shown,” Mr Walker said.

Qatar Airways says there is no evidence linking the nurse who assessed the women on the tarmac to MATAR.

Mr Walker said the injuries claimed by the complainants did not fall within the category of “bodily injury”.

The court was told the liability for the nurse on the tarmac “involved the need to plead material facts” to make out a relation to the airport’s staff.

“In our law, one would be looking for employment or an agency … given to an independent contractor,” Mr Walker said.

“There’s none of that.”

Mr Walker said there was no evidence linking the nurse who assessed the women on the tarmac to MATAR.

The case will return to the Federal Court on Tuesday.

In his judgment dismissing the application last year, Justice Halley found the police operation was conducted off the aircraft and was not headed by an airline employee.

The women alleged “armed and unarmed persons in dark uniforms” had directed them off the plane – characterising these uniformed people as “agents or employees or persons akin or analogous to employees” of the QCAA.

Justice Halley said there were no material facts provided to advance this claim.

“Moreover, no material facts are pleaded and no particulars are provided in the (claim) of the alleged authorisation by the QCAA of the tortious acts or of the alleged negligent supervision of MATAR,” he said.

“In the absence of such material facts and particulars, it is difficult to see how the claims for assault, battery and false imprisonment against the QCAA could succeed.”

Originally published as Women invasively strip searched by Qatar Airways lodge appeal, lawyer slams airline’s ‘drip-feed’ approach