Mrayhej v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2015] FCA 79

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mrayhej v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 79

Citation:	Mrayhej v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 79
Parties:	MONKEZ MRAYHEJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
File number:	NSD 2613 of 2013
Judge:	FOSTER J
Date of judgment:	13 February 2015
Legislation:	Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501
Date of hearing:	13 February 2015
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	5
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person via video link
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms EW Knight of Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 2613 of 2013

BETWEEN:	MONKEZ MRAYHEJ Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION Respondent

JUDGE:	FOSTER J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 FEBRUARY 2015
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application to vacate the hearing fixed for 12 March 2015 is refused.

2.The listing of the proceeding for final hearing at 10.15 am on 12 March 2015 is confirmed.

3.As soon as practicable, the solicitors for the respondent formally notify the applicant in writing of the terms of these Orders. 

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 2613 of 2013

BETWEEN:	MONKEZ MRAYHEJ Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION Respondent

JUDGE:	FOSTER J
DATE:	13 FEBRUARY 2015
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I listed this matter this morning with a view to understanding whether the applicant wished to apply for an adjournment of the hearing date, which I had previously fixed for 12 March 2015 before me and, if so, what the basis of such an application might be. 

2. In correspondence with the Court and again this morning, the applicant has indicated that he has a Family Court hearing in prospect at some stage after he is released from prison which, on present indications, will be on either 2 or 3 June this year.  He submitted that he wants to have his Family Court matter dealt with before his immigration matter because he is fearful that, if he loses this matter, he will be unable to prosecute his Family Court matter and perhaps lose contact with his children.  He submitted that it is much more difficult for him to conduct this matter from prison than it is from immigration detention. 

3. The matter has a long history including, I think, one, or possibly two, adjournments of hearing dates. I am keen to have the applicant’s case dealt with as soon as possible, given the nature of the matter—it being an appeal or a challenge to a decision made by the Minister under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

4. The offences committed by the applicant are serious and were obviously of concern to the Minister when the decision to cancel his visa was made.  Ms Knight, who appears for the Minister, has drawn my attention to the history of the matter and also submitted that there would be little difference between the applicant’s capacity to represent himself competently from prison and his capacity to do so while in immigration detention.  That is probably right, although it will obviously be quite difficult for the applicant to conduct his case from prison.  At the present time, he is representing himself.  However, in all the circumstances, I think that the matter must be heard and not deferred again. 

5. Accordingly, I do not propose to vacate the hearing date.  The final hearing of the applicant’s Application will go ahead on 12 March 2015 as presently fixed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Foster.

Associate: 

Dated:        16 February 2015