Applicants S1560 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal

Case [2003] FCA 1619


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicants S1560 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1619

APPLICANTS S1560 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N1413 OF 2003

EMMETT J
4 DECEMBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N1413 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANTS S1560 OF 2003
APPLICANTS

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        leave be granted to file a notice of discontinuance in the form now filed;

2.        the proceeding be dismissed;

3.        the adult applicants pay the first respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

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

N1413 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANTS S1560 OF 2003
APPLICANTS

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

4 DECEMBER 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicants are citizens of South Africa, who arrived in Australia on 4 March 1994.  On 25 July 1994, they applied under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for refugee status and related entry permits. The applications were deemed to be applications for protection visas as from 1 September 1994. On 10 April 1997, a delegate of the second respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’), refused to grant protection visas to the applicants. On 7 May 1997, the applicants applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) for review of the delegate’s decision. On 26 February 1998, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant protection visas.

  2. On 29 May 2003, a proceeding was commenced in the High Court of Australia on behalf of the applicants, including their children.  That matter was remitted to this Court.  On 27 October 2003, I directed the applicants to file and serve, no later than 24 November 2003, a statement of contentions of relevant facts and law and any affidavits upon which the applicants intended to rely at the hearing.  No documents have been filed pursuant to that direction.

  3. When the matter was called on for hearing today, the solicitor for the applicants filed a notice of discontinuance on behalf of the female applicant and the children and indicated that he did not have instructions on behalf of the husband applicant.  The Minister asks that the proceeding be otherwise dismissed for failing to comply with the directions and that the adult applicants be ordered to pay the Minister’s costs.

  4. The claim before the Tribunal was made on behalf of the family unit, the principal claimant being the female claimant, who said that she was being pursued because the law firm for which she worked dealt with the African National Congress (‘ANC’).  She says she was being pursued by an individual who was a member of the Inkatha Freedom Party who opposed the ANC.  The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was being targeted as an individual and was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of membership of a particular social group.  There was no separate claim by the husband to an entitlement to protection under the Refugees Convention.

  5. In the circumstances, I consider that it is appropriate to accede to the Minister’s application.  Accordingly, I propose to order that the proceeding be dismissed and that the adult applicants pay the Minister’s costs of the proceeding.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:             22 January 2004

Solicitor for the Applicants: Adrien Joel & Co
Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 4 December 2003
Date of Judgment: 4 December 2003
Details
AGLC
Applicants S1560 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1619
Case
[2003] FCA 1619
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the applicants, S1560 of 2003, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicants, who were seeking asylum in Australia, disputed the Tribunal's decision to reject their refugee status claims. The core of the dispute was whether the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the credibility and reliability of the applicants' accounts, and whether there were procedural flaws in the decision-making process.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the Tribunal had failed to properly consider the applicants' evidence, whether the decision was based on irrelevant considerations, and whether there had been a breach of natural justice. Additionally, the applicants argued that the Tribunal had not adequately addressed their fear of persecution if returned to their home country. The Court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and whether it had adhered to the principles of procedural fairness.

The Court found that the Tribunal had adequately considered the applicants' evidence and had not erred in its credibility assessments. The Court also concluded that there were no procedural flaws that would warrant overturning the Tribunal's decision. The applicants' arguments regarding the Tribunal's consideration of their fear of persecution were rejected as the Court found that the Tribunal's decision was supported by the evidence before it. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered the applicants to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. leave be granted to file a notice of discontinuance in the form now filed;

2. the proceeding be dismissed;

3. the adult applicants pay the first respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.