Madenan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2001] FCA 1372
•21 SEPTEMBER 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Madenan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1372
SURYONO MADENAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1285 of 2001SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
21 SEPTEMBER 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N1285 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
SURYONO MADENAN
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 SEPTEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
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
N1285 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
SURYONO MADENAN
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
SACKVILLE J
DATE:
21 SEPTEMBER 2001
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The respondent (“the Minister”) seeks to dismiss an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 17 August 2001. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister refusing to grant the applicant a Bridging visa. The application was filed in this Court on 7 September 2001.
The matter has been listed today for a directions hearing. The applicant was, until yesterday, in immigration detention.
Most of the long and complex procedural history of this matter is outlined in large measure in Conti J’s judgment in Suryono v Minister For Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1224. The chronology in that judgment has been supplemented by a chronology prepared by the solicitor appearing on behalf of the Minister in these proceedings.
The Minister, through his delegate, has taken steps to remove the applicant and his family from Australia. This was done yesterday, 20 September 2001. I have expressed my concern to the solicitor appearing for the Minister that the applicant and his family should have been removed from Australia one day prior to the first directions hearing in this matter. The first directions hearing was set only two weeks after the application was filed because the applicant and his family have been in detention.
I can understand that there may have been a sense of frustration on the part of the Minister’s delegates with the repeated efforts of the applicant to secure a Bridging visa and to pursue an application for a Protection visa in circumstances that appeared unpromising. It is not obvious, however, on the evidence adduced before me today why it was thought necessary or appropriate to remove the applicant and his family the day before the first directions hearing in this Court. There is nothing before me to indicate why the removal could not have been delayed until after the first directions hearing. If the appellant’s case was as hopeless as the Minister suggests, doubtless the Court would not have acceded to any application for an injunction to restrain removal of the applicant (assuming any such application had been made). There could then have been no suggestion of disrespect to the Court. Yet from the Minister’s perspective the same result would have been achieved.
In the circumstances there does not appear to be any purpose in maintaining the proceedings and no real likelihood that they will be pursued. That seems to me to be sufficient to warrant an order dismissing the application by reason of the non-appearance of the applicant. No application has been made on behalf of the Minister for the costs of these proceedings and accordingly it is not necessary for me to address that issue.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville. Associate:
Dated: 25 September 2001
The Applicant was not present.
Solicitor appearing for the Respondent: Mr Z. Chami - Clayton Utz Date of Hearing: 21 September 2001 Date of Judgment: 21 September 2001
0
1
0