De Costa v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
De Costa v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 723
WEERATHUNGA ARACHCHIGE PULASTHIL K DE COSTA V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 317 OF 2001
MOORE J
6 JUNE 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N317 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

WEERATHUNGA ARACHCHIGE PULASTHIL K DE COSTA
FIRST APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 JUNE 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS AND DIRECTS THAT:
1.The application is dismissed.
2.The applicants pay the respondent's 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

N 317 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

WEERATHUNGA ARACHCHIGE PULASTHIL K DE COSTA
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

6 JUNE 2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MOORE J

This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 19 March 2001 affirming a decision not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. The applicant is a Sri Lankan national of Sinhalese ethnicity who arrived in Australian on 10 November 2000. The application for judicial review contained no details concerning the grounds upon which the review was sought. I have invited the applicant who is unrepresented to identify reviewable errors in the decision of the Tribunal but nothing was said that suggests to me any error is raised by the applicant.
I have read the decision of the Tribunal and, in substance, the Tribunal rejected as implausible the account the applicant gave of his experiences in Sri Lanka that were said to give rise to his well-founded fear of persecution. The applicant's account revolved around his friendship with a young Tamil who was a customer at a shop at which the applicant worked. It was as a result of that friendship, on the applicant's account, that the applicant was arrested, detained, interrogated and tortured. None of this was accepted by the Tribunal.
There is nothing apparent in the Tribunal’s reasons that suggest to me any reviewable error arose from the way in which it dealt with the applicant's claims. Accordingly, I order that the application for judicial review is dismissed and the applicant pay the respondent's costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.
Associate:
Dated: 13 June 2001
The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Geoffrey Kennett

Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

Date of Hearing: 6 June 2001

Date of Judgment: 6 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Weeratunga Arachchige Pulasthik K De Costa v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs involved an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 19 March 2001. The decision in question was to affirm a refusal to grant the applicant, a Sri Lankan national of Sinhalese ethnicity, a protection visa. The applicant arrived in Australia on 10 November 2000 and had applied for judicial review of the decision without providing details about the grounds for the review. The application was heard by Justice Moore in the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had made any reviewable errors in its assessment of the applicant's claims. The applicant, who was unrepresented, did not provide any specific grounds for review during the hearing. Justice Moore examined the Tribunal’s decision, which essentially rejected the applicant's account of his experiences in Sri Lanka, particularly his claim of being arrested, detained, interrogated, and tortured due to his friendship with a Tamil customer. The court found that the Tribunal's decision did not indicate any reviewable error, as the Tribunal had reasonably determined that the applicant's account was implausible.

Justice Moore concluded that there was no evidence of any procedural or substantive error in the Tribunal's decision-making process. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs. The reasoning and outcome of the case were based solely on the review of the Tribunal's decision and the absence of any demonstrated errors in that decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N317 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	WEERATHUNGA ARACHCHIGE PULASTHIL K DE COSTA FIRST APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 JUNE 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 317 OF 2001

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	6 JUNE 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Counsel for the Respondent:	Geoffrey Kennett
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	6 June 2001
Date of Judgment:	6 June 2001