Samson v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2001] FCA 837

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Samson v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 837

MIGRATION – application for extension of time to file and service notice of appeal – where application already dismissed under the name “Genesis Godman” – where “Ojo Samson” an alias for “Genesis Godman” – present application therefore an abuse of process.

OJO SAMSON v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NO. N 616 OF 2001  

JUDGE:          BEAUMONT J
DATE:           7 JUNE 2001
PLACE:         SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 616 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	OJO SAMSON APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 JUNE 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed, with 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 616 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	OJO SAMSON APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J
DATE:	7 JUNE 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEAUMONT J:

1. Before the Court is an application for extension of time lodged by an unrepresented party seeking an extension of time in which to appeal from a decision of a single Judge of the Court dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The judgment at first instance was given on 21 March 2001.  On 3 May, 2001, the applicant in the proceedings at first instance lodged an application for extension of time in which to appeal to the Full Court from the dismissal of his proceedings.  That application was dealt with by Sackville J on 11 May, 2001.  His Honour said in his reasons that only a relatively short time had passed since the decision at first instance and his Honour would not be inclined to regard that delay, of itself, as requiring refusal of an application for extension of time.

2. However, the primary Judge in her reasons for judgment dated 21 March 2001 noted that the application for order of review before her contained no details of any grounds of review.  Her Honour further noted that at the hearing before her, the applicant had declined to put any submissions to the Court.  Her Honour then referred to the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Minister”), in which it was submitted that there was no ground of review and noted that the decision of the Tribunal was based on its finding that the applicant had fabricated his claim.

3. The primary judge said:

   “That finding was entirely open to the Tribunal on the material before it.  I agree with the respondent's submission.  The applicant has not pointed to and, having reviewed the material I have been unable to find any reviewable error.”

4. Sackville J, in refusing the application for extension of time, said:

   “The fundamental difficulty in this case is that there is nothing in the Notice of Appeal to suggest that there is any prospect whatsoever that the appeal would succeed.  The only ground identified in the Notice of Appeal is one that suggests that Muslim militants had declared the applicant to be a wanted person for a particular reason.  That issue was the subject of factual findings by the Tribunal.  As Stone J pointed out, no basis was presented to her for suggesting that the Tribunal had erred in law in rejecting that claim, nor that there was any other ground for setting aside the Tribunal’s decision.  The applicant has not been able to suggest any basis upon which an appeal would enjoy any prospects of success to be granted.  In these circumstances, no extension of time should be granted.  To do so would simply be an act of futility.”

5. The present application comes before me in rather unusual circumstances.  The matter had been before the primary Judge and Sackville J under the applicant’s name of “Genesis Godman”.  However, the present application is made in the name of “Ojo Samson”.  The applicant accepts that this name is an alias for his other name “Genesis Godman”.  More importantly, the present application is, in substance, clearly an attempt to re-agitate the application refused on 11 May 2001 by Sackville J.

6. In those circumstances, having heard the applicant today, I am of the view that the present application is an abuse of process and for that reason the application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal must be dismissed and I so order. 

   ORDERS

7. Application 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 Beaumont.

Associate:

Dated:             4 July 2001

Solicitor for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr M Snell
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	7 June 2001
Date of Judgment:	7 June 2001