NAOP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 437

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAOP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 437

NAOP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 2548 of 2003

WHITLAM J
6 APRIL 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 2548 of 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NAOP APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 APRIL 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant 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 2548 of 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NAOP APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	6 APRIL 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’).  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the appellant a protection visa.

2. Nothing that the appellant said in his address this morning gave the slightest hint that this proceeding involves an appeal from a judicial decision.  The notice of appeal itself addresses the federal magistrate’s judgment in only one of its grounds, the allegation that the federal magistrate erred in considering ‘the real state of affairs of the applicant’.  It was obvious that the appellant merely wished to cavil with the findings of the Tribunal touching on the merits of his claims. No mention was made of any suggested jurisdictional error that would have permitted the federal magistrate to quash the Tribunal’s decision. 

3. The reasons for judgment of the Court below show that the federal magistrate gave anxious consideration to the situation of the appellant as an unrepresented party and carefully considered whether there were any possible grounds on which the Tribunal’s decision could be challenged.  They do not reveal any error in the approach of the federal magistrate. 

4. It is apparent from the two sets of written submissions prepared and signed by the appellant prior to the hearing of the appeal that someone who purports to have a command of the English language is endeavouring to ‘assist’ the appellant in the conduct of this proceeding.  However, those submissions are entirely lacking in utility and do not assist the appellant. 

5. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:            6 April 2004

The appellant appeared in person

Counsel for the respondent:	T Reilly
Solicitors for the respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of hearing:	6 April 2004
Date of judgment:	6 April 2004