NACS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 641

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NACS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
FCA [2002] 641

NACS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 133 of 2002

WILCOX J
14 MAY 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N133 of 2002

BETWEEN:	NACS APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 MAY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent.

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	N133 of 2002

BETWEEN:	NACS APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	14 MAY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal refusing an application for a protection visa.  The decision was made on 24 December 2001 and the application filed on 26 February 2002.  I assume that it was filed in time, having regard to the date at which the decision was communicated.

2. The significance of the dates is that the legislate amendments which commenced on 2 October 2001 apply to the case.  However, it is not necessary to consider their effect.  Nothing has been put before me to suggest there was any error of law or procedure by the Tribunal. 

3. It is clear the applicant is deeply unhappy about the Tribunal's decision.  He feels his evidence should have been accepted.  He has drawn my attention to a document, which is included in the papers, which supports his claim that an incident occurred, in about July 1999, when army police inquired about the theft of army supplies by certain army personnel.  According to the applicant, he was at that time a supplier of grain to the army in Vanuniya.  He told the Tribunal that he reported an approach made to him by Sergeant Karunaratne about purchasing stolen goods.  He said this led to action against Sergeant Karunaratne. 

4. I have not myself attempted to trace through the particular dates.  However the Tribunal did not disbelieve the applicant's claim to have reported thefts of army supplies.  The problems of acceptance of evidence suffered by the applicant, before the Tribunal, related to later matters. 

5. I have explained to the applicant, both today and at the directions hearing, that the Court cannot review the Tribunal's findings of fact.  The Court has only a limited power of review.  There must, at least, be legal error or a failure to follow the statutory procedural requirements.  The applicant has not been able to put before me any submission of such an error or failure.  This is despite the fact that he apparently received legal advice under the panel scheme organised by the Court with the Bar Association and Law Society.

6. Under the circumstances, I have no alternative other than to dismiss the application. 

7. Counsel for the Minister seeks an order for costs.  Under the circumstances, I think I have no alternative other than to make such an order.  The order of the Court is that the application be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:            25 May 2002

The applicant appeared in person and was assisted by interpreter Mr Ramanther Kulasekerran.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R Bromwich
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	14 May 2002