Lee, Jae Bok v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1997] FCA 1575

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 221  of   1997

BETWEEN:	JAE BOK LEE APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:		BEAUMONT, HEEREY AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:		9 OCTOBER 1997
WHERE MADE:		MELBOURNE

ORDERS:

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
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 221 of 1997

BETWEEN:	JAE BOK LEE APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	BEAUMONT, HEEREY AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE:	9 OCTOBER 1997
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEAUMONT J

Mr Jae Bok Lee, the appellant, is a national of South Korea who arrived in Australia in 1988.  In 1994 he applied for a protection visa, claiming that he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted by reason of his political opinion, in the event that he were to return to South Korea.  In 1995 the delegate of the Minister refused the application.  Later in that year, Mr Lee applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for review of that decision.  He attended a hearing before the Tribunal and gave evidence in support of his case.  Mr Lee was not legally represented and spoke through an interpreter.

On 12 April 1996 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision to refuse a protection visa.  Thereafter, Mr Lee applied in this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.  The matter was heard by a Judge of the Court.  On that occasion also, Mr Lee appeared for himself, assisted by an interpreter.  In a reserved judgment, the learned primary Judge, for the reasons then given, dismissed the application.  The present appeal is an appeal from that dismissal.

Mr Lee has again appeared before us without legal representation, but with an interpreter.  In his written submissions, which are now marked “1” for identification, Mr Lee has endeavoured, in substance, to agitate the merits and the facts and circumstances underlying his application to the Tribunal.  In particular, he has sought to agitate his perception of civil proceedings in litigation in South Korea between himself and a South Korean bank.  He has relied before us, as indeed he sought to rely before the Tribunal and before the learned primary Judge, upon the circumstances surrounding that litigation as a platform to mount his claim of persecution.

In my opinion, there is no substance in the appeal.  The issues raised in the grounds of appeal have been discussed in the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent and dated 7 October 1997.  There appears, it is clear, as has been mentioned in the course of argument, that there are substantial limits on the jurisdiction of this Court in any application for judicial review of the present kind.  Those limits stem not only from provisions of the statute which govern the jurisdiction, but also arise as a consequence of the interpretation placed upon the role and function of the Court in judicial review in this area, as explained in the decisions of the High Court of Australia mentioned in the respondent's written submissions.

In essence, there is no jurisdiction in the Court to canvass or review the merits, facts or circumstances of the matter.  As well, in the absence of any suggestion of a denial of procedural fairness, there is simply no scope for judicial intervention in a case such as the present.  As I have said, the main thrust of Mr Lee's submissions before us was directed at his relationship with the bank and with the litigation that flowed out of that relationship.  The circumstances so relied upon were fully considered by the Tribunal and their significance, if any, was, in my view, properly addressed by the primary Judge.  There is no warrant for interference on that ground, in my opinion. 

So far as procedural fairness is concerned, it was said at first instance by Mr Lee that he was denied procedural fairness by the Tribunal in that he claimed he was not given an adequate opportunity to address the Tribunal orally.  However, as the transcript before the Tribunal clearly indicates, and as the primary Judge found, Mr Lee was given a full opportunity to make written submissions in support of his application to the Tribunal.  Moreover, as the primary Judge found, Mr Lee fully availed himself of that opportunity.  In those circumstances, there is nothing in the form of a denial of procedural fairness to warrant this Court's intervention. 

In my view, the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by the learned primary Judge.

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

Associate:

Dated:            9 October 1997

The Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Downing
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	9 October 1997
Date of Judgment:	9 October 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 221 of  1997

BETWEEN:	JAE BOK LEE APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	BEAUMONT, HEEREY AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE:	9 OCTOBER 1997
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HEEREY J:
I agree with Beaumont J

I certify that this page is a true copy
of the Reasons for Judgment herein
of the Honourable Justice Heerey.

Associate:

Dated: