Arumainathan, Leonard Jeyan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1998] FCA 855

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 450 of 1998

BETWEEN:	LEONARD JEYAN ARUMAINATHAN APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:		BLACK CJ, WHITLAM, MARSHALL JJ
DATE OF ORDER:		3 JULY 1998
WHERE MADE:		SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

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	NG 450 of 1998

BETWEEN:	LEONARD JEYAN ARUMAINATHAN APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	BLACK CJ, WHITLAM, MARSHALL JJ
DATE:	3 JULY 1998
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT (delivered by Black CJ):

This is an appeal from a judgment of Wilcox J in which his Honour dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal.  That decision was one to refuse the appellant a protection visa.

The appellant is not represented before us today, but before Wilcox J he was represented by experienced counsel, Mr Beech-Jones.  In his reasons for judgment, Wilcox J observed that Mr Beech-Jones had put the arguments on behalf of the appellant as well as they could be put.  His Honour was nevertheless not persuaded that there was any error of law on the part of the Refugee Review Tribunal in its determination in this case.

In his submission today the appellant may be taken to have relied upon the submissions made by Mr Beech-Jones as outlined by Wilcox J in his reasons for judgment.  The appellant also relied upon some submissions about the facts of the case.

This Court, having carefully considered the matter, including the submissions of Mr Beech-Jones as recorded in the reasons for judgment of Wilcox J, finds no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of Wilcox J.  We agree with his Honour’s reasoning which, it is not necessary for us to repeat here.

The factual arguments advanced by the appellant today are not matters that can properly form the basis of an application for judicial review.  Speaking generally, it is the function of this Court to consider, within a limited statutory framework, matters that can be broadly characterised as errors of law rather than the factual matters that the appellant sought to raise.  Those were matters for consideration as part of the merits review undertaken by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

In these circumstances the appeal must be dismissed.  Accordingly, the order of the Court is that the appeal be dismissed, with costs.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court

Associate:

Dated:             3 July 1998

Appellant in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	3 July 1998
Date of Judgment:	3 July 1998