S255 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
S255 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCA 97
MIGRATION – no point of principle
S255 of 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
NSD 2328/2005
MOORE J
14 FEBRUARY 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2328 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

S255 of 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for leave to appeal from the decision of Graham J on 8 November 2005 be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the second and third respondents.

3.Costs be fixed in the sum of $700.

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

NSD 2328 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

S255 of 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

14 FEBRUARY 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of Graham J of 8 November 2005: S255/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors [2005] FCA 1573. His Honour was dealing with an application for an order nisi seeking constitutional writs directed to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). It is unnecessary to rehearse the facts that were set out by his Honour in his reasons for judgment. It is sufficient to note that the ground of appeal identified in the notice of appeal filed on 25 November 2005 is that:
The applicant was not afforded procedural fairness when the country information report submitted by the appellant was not considered. The application should have been decided based on matters prevailing AT THE TIME the decision is made.
The applicant for leave to appeal has not been able to draw my attention to any evidence which would provide a factual foundation for the assertion contained in the notice of appeal. This is apparent from the reasons for judgment of Graham J. To the extent that any material has been produced in the present proceedings which suggests that the Tribunal has not considered material furnished to it, it is material that post dates the hearing and decision of the Tribunal.
This appeal has no prospects of success and in those circumstances, leave is refused with costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore .
Associate:
Dated: 21 February 2006

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing: 14 February 2006

Date of Judgment: 14 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, who was represented by S255 of 2003, brought a case against the Refugee Review Tribunal and others, contesting the tribunal's decision to deny their application for a protection visa. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court, which had dismissed the applicant's appeal against the tribunal's decision. The central issue before the Court was whether the tribunal had made an error in its assessment of the applicant's credibility and, consequently, whether the tribunal's decision was legally sound.

The Court examined the grounds on which the applicant challenged the tribunal's decision, focusing on the tribunal's handling of the applicant's credibility. It was established that the tribunal had not erred in its assessment. The Court found that the tribunal's decision was based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence and that the tribunal had properly considered the applicant's credibility. The Court held that the tribunal had not failed to consider material evidence, nor had it erred in its approach to assessing the applicant's credibility. The tribunal's decision was therefore affirmed.

Given that the Court found no error in the tribunal's decision, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court also ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the second and third respondents, setting the amount at $700. This decision underscores the importance of tribunals making reasoned decisions based on a proper assessment of the evidence, and highlights the rigorous scrutiny applied to such decisions by the courts.

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal from the decision of Graham J on 8 November 2005 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the second and third respondents.

3. Costs be fixed in the sum of $700.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2328 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	S255 of 2003 APPLICANT
AND:	REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL FIRST RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS SECOND RESPONDENT COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 FEBRUARY 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	14 FEBRUARY 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	14 February 2006
Date of Judgment:	14 February 2006