NAPs v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 62

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAPS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2004] FCA 62

NAPS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 585 of 2003

ALLSOP J
11 FEBRUARY 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 585 of 2003

BETWEEN:	NAPS APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 FEBRUARY 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant have leave on or before 25 February 2004 to file in the Registry and serve on the solicitors for the respondent any further document by way of submission only upon which he wishes to rely.

2.The matter stand over to a date to be fixed for judgment or further directions.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

1  IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 585 of 2003

BETWEEN:	NAPS APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE:	11 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter was heard on a number of days in September and October last year with the last submissions being filed on 6 November 2003.  The applicant has made detailed claims in relation to various matters concerning a hearing before the Refugee Review Tribunal.  After completing the hearing on 29 October 2003 I gave the applicant limited leave to file further submissions.  One matter which I gave leave in relation to was a document which the applicant had handed to Court on 29 October 2003.  On pages 17 and 18 of the transcript of 29 October there is recorded the fact that the applicant handed up a document.  I specifically recall and my recollection is borne out by the transcript that I returned the document to the applicant.  This can be seen from the top of page 19 of the transcript.  I said to the applicant:

   I think it is better that I hand this back.  Use this as the foundation for any further submissions.  Put whatever you like in the submissions but some of it is scribbled on, some of them are notes, it is probably best if you put it in a final form that you will like to, put it in for further written submission.  If you have that opportunity to put in further written submissions do you want to say anything further today?

2. Later on that day I said (as recorded on pages 20 and 21 of the transcript):

   You are to file these further submissions in the registry and provide a copy to Blake Dawson Waldron.

3. The applicant took the opportunity to file further submissions on 3 November including an affidavit for which he had no leave.  I will deal with these matters in my final judgment.  The respondent replied on 4 November and then the applicant further replied on 6 November by filing two submission.  One of those submissions commenced in the following terms:

   1.1The Court gave me leave to rewrite this statement which I handed over to the Court on 29 October 2003.

   1.2I did not submit further evidence.

   1.3I numbered that statement one to thirty five to be able to find out the paragraphs quickly.

4. The submissions then go on, apparently on the assumption that the Court has a copy of a document dated 29 October 2003. 

5. As I have made clear, I handed back the document to the applicant in Court on 29 October as is borne out by the transcript.  I am not aware of the circumstances as to why the applicant would frame these submissions in this way.  I considered dealing with the matter in the absence on any further opportunity to provide further material.  The applicant has had ample time and ample opportunity to put everything he possibly wishes to in relation to this matter.  However, on reflection, I propose to give the applicant a brief further opportunity to put to the Court in writing anything further that he wishes to.  This is not an opportunity to restate matters already put to the Court.  The Court did not retain the document handed up to it on 29 October to which reference is made in paragraph 1.1 above.  I do not propose to enter any debate about this question.  I have a clear recollection of it being handed back.  That recollection is borne out by the transcript. 

6. The applicant will have fourteen days to put any further document he wishes to the Court.  It will be provided to the Court only by filing and serving a document in the Registry.  The document is not to be faxed to my chambers.  The applicant is not to ring or communicate with my associate.  The applicant on a number of occasions last year rang my chambers and spoke to my associate seeking assistance.  My associate on both occasions told him that this was inappropriate and he was not to do this.  I wish to make it clear that the applicant is not to ring my chambers.  There need only be one further step taken in this matter if the applicant wishes to.  I have given him leave to file in the Registry any further submissions.  No other step need be taken by him.

7. Therefore I propose to make the following orders.

   1.The applicant have leave on or before 25 February 2004 to file in the Registry and serve on the solicitors for the respondent any further document by way of submission only upon which he wishes to rely.

   2.The matter stand over to a date to be fixed for judgment or further directions.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop.

Associate:

Dated:            11 February 2004

The Applicant appeared in person:
Counsel for the Respondent:	M Allars
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	16 September, 26 September, 23 October and 29 October 2003
Last submission	6 November 2003
Date of Judgment:	11 February 2004