Jaspal Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1998] FCA 1240

CATEGORY: NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 1139 of 1997

BETWEEN:	JASPAL SINGH Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	BURCHETT J
DATE:	23 SEPTEMBER 1998
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter the applicant seeks a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The application states a number of grounds, but was presented in argument solely on the basis of ground 8, which reads:

“The Respondent did not take into proper consideration the merit of the case as per the Applicant's specific situation.”

I pass over the purely technical solecism in the reference to the respondent, because it is the decision of the Tribunal which is said not to have taken this matter into proper consideration. 

The argument focussed, then, on the manner in which the Tribunal disposed of the credit of the applicant, which it considered was significantly damaged by the inconsistency between the period he said he had been in detention, when making his original claims to departmental officers which referred to a period of five months detention, and the evidence he gave before the Tribunal, which referred to three periods of detention, the longest of which was six weeks and the other two apparently much shorter.  The Tribunal also doubted his credit because of a reference to a leader of the Sikh movement with which he was concerned, one Amriq Singh.  The Tribunal challenged him about his evidence concerning Amriq Singh on the footing that Amriq Singh, according to material available to the Tribunal, although he was indeed a significant leader, had been killed as far back as 1984. 

The transcript makes it clear that the applicant was somewhat nonplussed by the Tribunal’s challenge, but he did not at the time explain what has now been explained through the evidence of an independent witness, that there were two Amriq Singhs, both of whom occupied positions of leadership in anti-government organisations in the Punjab.  It is now fairly clear that the applicant was referring to an Amriq Singh who was in gaol in India, and not to the Amriq Singh who was killed.  However, I am unable to conclude that there was anything unreasonable in the way the Tribunal approached the matter, or that it was without evidence to justify the conclusion that it drew.  Singh, of course, is an exceedingly common name, and if the coincidence were confined to this surname I would have no difficulty in regarding the Tribunal's attitude as unreasonable.  However, the coincidence is not confined to the surname, but also extends to the first name, Amriq.  There is no evidence that this is such a common name as to make the Tribunal's inference unreasonable.

However, I should note that I do accept the evidence of the independent witness, so that it does appear the applicant may have suffered from an unfortunate misunderstanding.  Whether that misunderstanding was so significant as to be responsible for the decision is, of course, another matter.  It is possible that it was so significant, but I cannot, on the material, reach any firm conclusion to that effect.  The fact is that the Tribunal stated conclusions which relied, in part, on its view of the credit of the applicant, and which certainly did not accept the full period of detention of which he gave evidence.

But the Tribunal also placed emphasis on the proposition that the situation has improved in the Punjab, and that the chance of persecution in the current climate there, for a man whose past is marked by nothing more significant than marks the applicant's past, should be regarded as remote.  It seems to me that that is an independent ground of the decision, which is not affected by the arguments put on the present application. 

The application must be dismissed, but for the reasons indicated in argument, I make no order as to costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:            1 October 1998

Counsel for the Applicant:	S C Churches
Migration Agent for the Applicant:	R R Singh Khalsa
Counsel for the Respondent:	V A Hartstein
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	23 September 1998
Date of Judgment:	23 September 1998