NABC of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCAFC 418

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NABC of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 418

APPLICANT NABC of 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 445 of 2002

WHITLAM, FINN and DOWNES JJ
25 NOVEMBER 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 445 of 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT NABC of 2002 APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	WHITLAM, FINN and DOWNES JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	25 NOVEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.        The appellant is to 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 445 of 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT NABC of 2002 APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	WHITLAM, FINN and DOWNES JJ
DATE:	25 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WHITLAM J

1. This is an appeal from a decision of Gyles J ([2002] FCA 539) given on 30 April 2002 dismissing an application in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) handed down on 19 December 2001. The decision of the Tribunal was a privative clause decision. The notice of appeal filed on 17 May 2002 contemplated amended grounds of appeal being filed invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903.  No amended notice of appeal was filed or sought to be filed.  The notice of appeal states no proper or sensible grounds of appeal.

2. The appellant has the misfortune to be acting for himself.  He has handed up submissions written in English which refer to legal authorities which I am quite sure he does not understand.  Nonetheless, having listened anxiously to everything he has had to say, no error is revealed on the part of the primary judge.  Nor does any hint arise from anything that was said by the appellant that suggests any of the principles enunciated by Dixon J in R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598 at 615 could be engaged in order to impugn the decision of the Tribunal.

3. Accordingly, in my opinion, the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

   
   FINN J

4. I agree with the reasons of the presiding judge and the orders proposed.

   DOWNES J

5. I agree.

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

Associate:

Dated:             10 December 2002

The appellant appeared in person.

Counsel for the respondent:	J D Smith
Solicitors for the respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of hearing:	25 November 2002
Date of judgment:	25 November 2002