AEX19 v Minister For Immigration and Anor (No.2)

[2020] FCCA 2613

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AEX19 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.2) [2020] FCCA 2613

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by applicant for the appointment of a lawyer to represent him in the proceeding – proceeding on foot for a considerable period of time – applicant previously represented by lawyers – application refused.

Applicant: AEX19

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number: ADG 18 of 2019

Judgment of: Judge Egan

Hearing date: 11 September 2020

Date of Last Submission: 11 September 2020

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 11 September 2020

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms Milutinovic of Sparke Helmore

Second Respondent: Submitting appearance save as to costs

ORDERS

1. The name of the First Respondent be amended to read ‘Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs’.

2. The Applicant’s application for referral for legal assistance be refused.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

ADG 18 of 2019

AEX19

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, the applicant, today, delivered to the lawyer for the first respondent, some written submissions of two pages. In the last paragraph, the applicant sought that the court appoint a pro bono lawyer in order that his case might properly be prepared and argued.

2. This matter has been on foot since January 2019. There has been much time in which the applicant has been able to obtain legal representation.  The court notes that the applicant previously had legal representatives acting for him who filed the Originating Application for Review on his behalf.  The application for the appointment of a pro bono lawyer would delay the hearing and is refused as being without justification in all of the circumstances.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Egan.

Associate:

Date: 17 September 2020