Applicant S1289 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 588

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1289 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 588

APPLICANT S1289 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 254 of 2004

JACOBSON J
4 MAY 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N254 of 2004

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT S1289 of 2003 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MAY 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N254 of 2004

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT S1289 of 2003 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE:	4 MAY 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is one of six applications for leave to appeal against the judgment of Emmett J given on 20 February 2004 refusing to grant an order nisi.  The relevant background to the proceedings and the reasons why his Honour refused to make an order nisi are referred to in my judgment in the matter of Applicant S1198 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 577.

2. The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of the application for leave to appeal.  The affidavit states that the applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) and that he wants the decision reviewed. 

3. The applicant appeared before me in person this morning.  He requested more time to deal with this application because he said that he does not understand the proceedings.  He also said that the RRT wrongly found against him because his case was true. 

4. I do not propose to allow the applicant any further time.  His Honour dealt with that issue in his judgment of 20 February 2004. 

5. Nor, as I told the applicant, do I sit here this morning to deal with the question of the merits of his case.  Nothing has been put to me this morning, either orally or in the applicant's affidavit, to suggest that there was any doubt about the correctness of his Honour's judgment.  I am satisfied that no injustice would be caused by refusing leave.

6. The order I propose to make is that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.         

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.

Associate:

Date:               4 May 2004

Applicant self represented
Counsel for the Respondent:	J D Harris SC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	4 May 2004
Date of Judgment:	4 May 2004