Application for order of review Bhajan Singh ex parte Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Case

[1981] FCA 289

24 Mar 1981

No judgment structure available for this case.

THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

General Division

APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF REVIEW

BHAJAN SINGH

ex parte MIKISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

ATJD ETHNIC AFFAIRS

C.A. SWEENEY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON TUESDAY, 24 MARCH 1981, AT 3.08 PM

.

Copyright in the Commonwealth Government

singh 24.3.81

g j m a£ If

S

l

MR P: ROSE:

I appear on behalf of the applicant in this

1

,

matter.

If I can fill'you in on the history

of this matter, Mr Singh came to Australia

in 1978

on a visitor's permit, as I understand it. He was

1 in Australia, overstayed his permit, was arrested, an order was made for his deportation and he was eventually deported on,I believe, 28 Nove~ttber 1979. On our instructions, he then was deported to

India, went to Thailand, down to

Singapore, across

to New Guinea and was back in Australia in

December of 1979.

HIS HONOUR:

Is this all in some affidavit, Mr Rose?

MR ROSE:

Yes, some of it is set out in the affidavit of my

instructing solicitor, Colin James Gibson.

HIS HONOUR:

I think it might help me to see what is in evidence,

I

rather than tahave a verbal picture, some of which is

in evidence and some of which is not.

MR ROSE: All of what I have just said went into evidence in

that I made an application for an order nisi

to show cause for a writ of habeas corpus on Friday

in the Supreme Court before his Honour Mr Justice

Ander son.

HIS HONOUR:

But what is in evidence in the Supreme Court is

not in evidence here.

MR ROSE: No. I thought I should give you this history

because otherwise I am going to have to at some stage vacate that Susrei-iie Court proceedings. for proceedings that go on here.

HIS HONOUR:

I am glad of your help, Mr Rose, but it will help

me if I see what I have before me in the way of

evidence at the present time.

MR ROSE: Yes. At the moment you only hsve ihe affidavit of

Colin James Gibson.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I have read that affidavit. What is the

relevant section or what are the relevant sections

of the act?

MR ROSE:

It is under section 5 of the Administrative Decisions

Judicial Review Act.

EIS HONOUR: Of 1977?

I

l

MR ROSE: Yes.

I

HIS HONOUR: And your client is a person aggrieved by a

deision to which this act applies, is he?

singh 24.3.81

MR ROSE

sjm af 2f S

MR ROSE: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Where does it appear that is a decision to which

this act applies?

i4R RGSE: I believe, your Honour, there are a number. It applies to a11 federal acts except certain that &re specified as classes which are not decisionable

in the act.

This appears to be a decision under

the Migration Act and it is not one of the acts

that is excluded.

HIS HONOUR:

Schedule 1 apparently contains classes of

decisions that are not decisions to which this

act applies.

MR ROSE: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: You say that this decision is not in schedule l?

MR ROSE: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And I see there is a definition in section 3 of

decisions to which this act applies.

MR ROSE: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: What are the grounds upon which your client

bases his application? I am looking at section 5(1),

those that are applicable. That sub-section (a)

applies, that is breach of natural justice. Where

does that appear? Where is there in that affidavit

some indication that your client has suffered

a breach of the rules of natural justice?

MR ROSE:

I do not believe it appears in the affidavit and

who swore the affidavit, is sitting opposite me

and if necessary he would give oral evidence.

The affidavit was prepared in some haste and

it was proposed that, if necessary, Mr Gibson, coming before your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: When did the Supreme Court make the order nisi

that you referred to?

MR ROSE: On Friday.

HIS HONOUR: Last Friday?

MR ROSE: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: When is that returnable?

singh 24.3.81

MR ROSE

sjmaf 3f S

MR ROSE: Tomorrow.

I

HIS HONOUR: So your client is protected until 10.30 tomorrow,

is he, by virtue of the Supreme Court Order?

MR ROSE: Yes.

l

HIS HONOUR: What do you apprehend might be the position

after 10.30 tomorrow?

MR ROSE:

I think, your Honour, I will be in a position where

I will have to ask his Honour to vacate his order and therefore the situation will be, if his Honour followed that course, that the deportation would

stand, that our client would face immediate

deportation.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. The proceedings in the Supreme Court, am I

right in thinking have been served at this stage

on the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs?

MR ROSE:

Yes, they have.

1

HIS HONOUR:

So that, as far as he and his advisors are

aware, they have to be prepared tomorrow morning

to deal with the habeas corpus proceedings in

the Supreme Court?

MR ROSE:

Yes, your Honour, I understand Mr Griffith for

counsel had been briefed. He had rung me and

I was not about when he rang and wI-.en I

rang

him back he was absent and so I have rung-and

informed the Ceputy Cro~an

Solicitor's office that

I would be seeking to make this application this afternoon and spoke to his instructor and indicated that, if these prcceedings wers successful, I would be seeking tomorrow to vacate

the order.

I did not want to leave them in the

dark as to what exactly we are doing, so we

have rung and told them.

HIS HONOUR: In which list in the Supreme Court is your matter

tomorrow?

MR ROSE: In the practice court.

HIS HONOUR:

It would ordinarily take its place after

unopposed business I presume?

MR ROSE: Yes, your Honour, except that it concerns a

habeas corpus and some judges do seem to give them

the

pxiority .

singh 24.3.81

4

MR ROSE

sjm af 4f S

HIS HONOUR: You will be safe at least until 10.30 and sometime

thereafter. Thc rezson for my questioning you is

to wonder why it would not be possible to direct

that there be short service of your present

application for this interim relief and list

the matter in this court at l0 o'clock tomorrow

morning, when there would be representation on the

part of both parties, rather than have the situation

that you have got one proceeding in the Supreme

Court which has been served on the Minister,

and you have another proceeding ex parte in this

court which has not been served. It is not exactly

a tidy state of affairs.

MR ROSE: Yes, your Honour. It was only the urgency of the

situation, that it was only by a phone call and the

fact that - - -

HIS HONOUR: How does it become urgent when you had the

opportunity, apparently, of preparing an order nisi

for habeas corpus returnable last Friday?

MR ROSE: On Friday we got a phone call in the.morning to

indicate that the man was being deported that

afternoon at 5.30.

The situation was that I

arrived back from court at lunchtime and was advised

of that and I went straight to the practice court

to get that order and the order was made. The man

had at that stage been granted assistance from

the Australian Legal Aid office and they indicated

'tomy instructing solicitor that they were not

prepared to grant any further aid until they had

received advice from me on the Monday in relation

to the matter as to the situation in the Supreme

Court and as to whether or not we could proceed

in the Federal Court.

I gave that advice, which

they received.

They then rang my instructing solicitor this

morning to say that aid was not granted in

relation to the proceedings but, nevertheless,

my instructor had some contact with the

Australian Indian Association for himself and got

some aid, which came about just this morning at around

ekeyen

and that was when .I drew the application

and my instructor drew the affidavit.

HIS HONOUR: I understand that. Do you see any problem for

your client in the matter being heard tomorrow

morning at ten?

singh 24.3.81

MR ROSE

sjm a£ 55 S

MR ROSE: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Do you want to address any argument to me to the

contrary?

MR ROSE: No, your Honour. It is obviously more desirable for

the other side to be heard.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. What I will do, then, is direct that the

application herein and the affidavit of Colin James Gibson, with copies of the exhibits thereto, be served immediately, which of course means this afternoon.

or more precisely a copy of the affidavit of

MR ROSE: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Upon the - what is the appropriate description? The Deputy Crown Solicitorfor the Commonwealth of Australia?

MR ROSE: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: On the Deputy Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth

of Australia, together with notice that I have

today ordered that the application be listed

for hearing in the number 3 court of the Federal

Court of Australia, 450 Little Bourke Street, at

l0 am on 25 March 1981.

Is there any other

position we should make?

MR ROSE: Yes, your Honour. In relation to that notification,

can that be an oral notificabion? My instructor is at Footscray and by the tirrehe returned there - - -

HIS HONOUR: Together with oral notice. I do not need to

go into the detail, but that oral notice would of matter.

course be given to the gentleman in the Deputy

MR ROSE: Yes, we have been in contact with him. It is

Mr Stephen Lucas.

HIS HONOUR:

I will say, "together with oral notice to

Mr Stephen Lucas of that office".

MR ROSE:

I would ask your Honour also to reserve costs.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, costs are reserved. Do you think it is

possible that between now and tomorrow morning

you might want to file some further affidavit?

MR ROSE: I think so, your Honour. Looking at the grounds

singh 24.3.81

MR ROSE

sjm af 6f S

they certainly have not been specified and I would

seek to have my instructor swear a supplementary

affidavit, but we will serve that also.

HIS HONOUR: Looking at your application, your application does

not seem to set out any of the grounds that are

listed in section 5 of the act, does it?

MR ROSE: No, not specifically.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you might therefore think it wise to.

What I will do is direct that any

application

for leave to amend the application herein be served

on the Deputy Crown Solicitor as soon as possible

and oral notice of the intention to do so be

given immediately to Mr Stephen Lucas, so that the

Minister's advisors will be aware that you have

in mind to seek leave to amend your application and

I will also direct that any further affidavits

to be relied upon by the applicant be served on the not think I can be more precise than that, Mr Rose.

MR ROSE: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:

Is there nothing else you want to mention?

MR ROSE: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Very well, the court

will adjourn.

AT 3.30 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 25 MARCH 1981

singh 24.3.81 sjm af 7f S

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0