Applicant A159 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 473

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant A159 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 473

APPLICANT A159 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS, J C BLOUNT, MEMBER, REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND THE PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

S 728 of 2003

MANSFIELD J
7 APRIL 2004
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 728 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT A159 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

J C BLOUNT, MEMBER, REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

THE PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 APRIL 2004

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application is dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay to the first respondent costs of the application

3.        There will be no order for costs of the second and third respondents

4.        The order not be sealed for 14 days.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 728 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT A159 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

J C BLOUNT, MEMBER, REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

THE PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE:	7 APRIL 2004
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application instituted in the High Court on 20 March 2003 for orders for mandamus, prohibition and certiorari in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) given on 21 November 2002.

2. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent made on 21 January 2002 not to grant to the applicant a protection visa for which he had applied under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). To succeed in procuring the orders which the application seeks, it is necessary that the applicant demonstrates jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal: see Plaintiff S157/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 211 CLR 476; [2003] HCA 2.

3. The matter came on for directions on 25 March 2004.  At that time the applicant appeared in person, having previously filed a notice of acting in person on 9 February 2004.  He sought an adjournment of the hearing date today, which had previously been fixed at a directions hearing on 27 February 2004, at which he had also been present.  I refused the application for the adjournment.

4. The reason for refusing the adjournment was that it was sought for the purpose of the acquisition of further primary evidentiary material which, the applicant claimed, would demonstrate as a fact that the Tribunal's decision was wrong.  Following his submissions and discussion with him it was clear that the additional material which he was seeking could not, on any view, demonstrate jurisdictional error on the part of the…