Singh, Marjorie Sarawati v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs

No judgment structure available for this case.

1.

15 Dcccrnber, 1083

KEI.:I,Y J .

T h e

a p p l i c a n t s ,

-#l10

a re

husbx ld

ancl wife,

have

a p p l i e d

t o

revl.ew

thrcc

clccislons

made

ru>c?rr Che

M ~ q r a t l o r .

A c t	1958.	The	a p p l i c a t l o n	i s ~ m d e under	S .	5	oi	t h e
--

Admjn i s t r a t ive

-

D e c ~

s ~ o n s

( J u c l l c ~ . a l . !<evic.d) A c t

1977

( J u d l c i a1

Revlew Act) and

~t was colmon g r o u n d t -hat

each

appl i c s n t was

a person "aggr ieved"

wl th ln

the !rf;lninrJ

t h a t

s e c t l o n .

2 '

1983, i n respecL of a d e c i s i o n of t h c C.:injs'cer

made on 5 May,

1 903 \;.hicl1

1s one of

t h e d e c i s i o n s

sought

t o be revic:red

by

t h e

a p p l l c a n t s .

T h a t

s t a t e m e n t

was

fu rn i shed

I n

answer

t o a

, !

i

formal

reques t

made

31

on

May,

1963

under

S.

t h e

o f

1 3

4 :

J

J u d i c i a l Kevlew

Act.

I

F i r s t ,

a

d e c i s i o n

o€ a n

o f f i c e r

of

the

Depar tmcr , t

of

I rmnig ra t lon

and

E thn ic

Af fa i r s

( t he

o f€ i ce r )

made

on

7

June,

I

!

1962

re fus~ .ng

to

g r a n t

t o

tke

app l i can t s ,

unde r

S .

G

of

t h e

K i g r a t l o n

A c t

1958,

a

f u r t h e r

temporary

an t ry

permi t .

The

appl lcan ts had

each

been granted temporary entry permlts on

a

I

number

o f

occas ions

In

r e spec t

of

V ~ T I O L I S p e r i o d s

t h e

f 1 r s t

!

of whlch

occurrcd

i n

early 1980

and

the l a s t . of which e::pll-ed

i

' I

on 1 June,

1962.

Secondly,

a

d e c i s l o n

of

the

r

sponden t

I ,

i

l

1

M i n i s t e r

l t t e r

b y

on

5

blay,

1 9 8 3

r e f u s l n g

g r a n t

t o

t h e

,

a

i

a p p l i c a n t s ,

u n d e r

S .

6A(1)

--the

of

Migration

Act ,

"an

e

t ry

: j

-

I

p e rmi t

o

he r

t han

a

temporary

en t ry

permi t"

i . e .

r e f u s i n g

to

i

g r a n t

w h a t

1 s

c o n v e n i e n t l y

c a l l e d

i n

t h e

a p p l i c a t x o n

, I

,

I

1

:

"permanent

res I.dence".

An

ex tens ion

o f

t he

time

p r e s c r i b e d

I

: i

by S.

11 of

the J u d i c i a l Revlew A c t f o r

t h e

l o d g i n g

of

the

i

; i	l	a p p l i c a t i o n	ir e s p e c t	of	the	d c i . s ion	of 7 June,	1982	was
!

? !

granied

wi

r

;hout

any

ob jec t ion

by

D r .

Jessup,

of

counsc l ,

who

I

appeared

respondent .

th

for

Thi rd ly ,

a

d e c l s i o n

of

the

r e sponden t

Min i s t e r ,

cons i s t ing

of

a

s t a t e m e n t

i n

t h e

l a s t

.

paragraph of t h c same l e t t e r of 5 Mdy,

1983,

whlch

w a s

reqarde6

by

i h e a p p l i c a n t s

2 5

z

c7.il-ection t o

them

t o

l e a v e

3 .

The

a~nenc lcd

app l i

ca t - ion

expres sed

t hc

g rounds

r e l i e d

upon

i n

r e s p e c t

of each of

those

t h ree

dec

j

s io l ; s ,

a s

be inq

:-

"That

he

making

of

the

decis ions

and

each

of

then

was an improper

exr.rcise

of

the p w e r conCerred

hy

the enactment i n pursuance of \:hlch j t was purported

t o Se loadc 311 t h a t r e l e v a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s !were 1 5 t

taken 3nto x c o u n t i n t h e exercise of

the povler and

in

p a r t i c u l a r

no

or

no

s a f f i c i e n t

c o n s l d e r a t l o n

was

I

, I

q i v e n

t o

t h e h e a l t h

of

Mar jor le

Sawaswat l

Slngh

and

no

o r

i n 5 u f f i c i e n t

c o n s i d e r a t i o n

was

qiven

t o

t h e

n e e d o r d e s i r a b i l i t y

of

Mangal

Sinqh

remaining

with

his	wife and f ami ly In Aus t r a l i a " .

I	I
, '

' l	Mr. Gunst, of counsel.,	on	behalf	o f	t h e a p p L l c e n t s ,
1 :
j l

i n

a

ca re fu l ly p repa red and we l l p re sen ted a rgunen t subn l t t cd

' i

! l

t h a t

e a c h

c p p l i c a n t

shoulcl

have

been

grantcd

a

temporary

.

(

. I

3

.

I

,

e n t r y

p c r u t .

He

s u h n i

t t e d

t h a t

the

d e c i s l o n

of

7

June ,

.

I

. >	1582,	i n	r e f u s i n g	Mrs.	S l n g h ' s	a p p l i c n t i o n ,	f a ~ l e d	t o	t a k e
: :

j.nto

a c c o u n t

c e r t a i n

r e l . e ~ ~ a n t

con:.i d e r a t l o n s .

Those

1 -	considcl- , : t ions	were	: -
.. 1

4.

( a )

the

need

for

jnunedlate

1mdicdi

treatment

f o r Mrs.

S i n c r l l ;

(b)

t he

need

Cor

a d d i t i o n a l

t i m e

in

which

t o

c x p l o r c

the

q u e s t i o n

of

f u r r h e r m e d l c a i

t r e a t m e n t

f o r

Mrs.

Singll;

( C )

the

n e e d

f o r

e a c h

a p p l i c a n t

b e

t o

"the

h o l d e r

of

a

t empora ry

en t ry

pe rmi t

rpnich

1 s

I n

f o r c e "

i n o r d e r

t o

bc

e l i g i b l e

t o

make

a p p l i c a t i o n ,

a s

t h e y

w i s h e d ,

f o r

a n

e n t r y

p e r m l t

e n t i t l i n g

t h e m

t o

permanent

r e s i d e n c e

( c f .

S. 6A(1)).

However,

each

of

Chose

m a t t e r s

was

r e f e r r e d

t o

i n

t h e m a t e r i a l a d v a n c e d t o

the

o f f i c e r b e f o r e

the

d e c i s i o n o f

7

June,

1982.

T h a t

l na t e r l a l

i nc luded

a

i c t t e r ,

da t ed l 4 Play,

1982,

by

D r .

Sewak w h i c h

r e f e r r e d

t o

Plrs.

S ingh ' s

medica l

c o n d i r i o n

and

express ly

reques ted

"an

ex tens ion

of

h e r

VlSd

f o r

a t

l e a s t

h r e e

m o n t h s " .

iIe

wrote

a

fu r the r

suppor t i i i g

l e t t e r ,

d a t e d

2 6

May,

1982.

Further ,

the

Reverend Dr.

Moonie,

i n

a

s t r o n g l y

w o r d e d

l e t t e r ,

d a t e d

13 May,

1982,

r e f e r r e d

t o

h e r

" s e r i o u s

i l l n e s s

t h a t

i s

v e r y

d l f f i c u l t

t o

t rea t" and

zo

t he

need

fo r

more

t o be

" learned

about

t l re

n a t u r c

o f

her

condi t ion"

and

sa id

'I..

.

I

u r g e n t l y

a s k

t h a t

h e r c u r r e n t

vi.sa

be

extcnded

t o a l l o w h e r

zo

e x p l o r e

f u r t h e r

t h e

p o s s i b i l i t i e s

o f

a l t e r n a t i v e

f o r m s

o f

t r e a t m e n t . "

He

r e f e n ? ?

c x p r e s s l y

t o

t h e

c f € e c t s

upon

Frs.

Singh

of

her

3

1	medical	condItLon	and	i t 5 consequences	and	the advantage oL
i i

,

L

"the

cooler

Melbourne

c l i inate" .

HIS

concluding

words

were

:-

O n

thc!

ev idence hefore

the Cour t ,

each

of those <.WO

l e t t e r s

frcm

D r .

Sewak

and

t h e

l e t t e r

by

D r .

t.;oonle

i n

suppor t

of

th::

a p p l i c a t i o n s

€or

fu r the r

t empora ry

en t ry

pernits were received

by

the o f f i c e r .

Ir

i s a g a ~ . n s t

t h a t

backgro tmd

tha t

the

Cour t

must

cons ide r

the

d e c i s i o n

of

7

June,

1982 which

inc ludes

the

fo l lowing pa rag raph

:-

" C a r e f u l

c o n s l d c r a t i o n

has

b e e n

g i v e n

t o

y o u r

application

f o r a

f u r t h e r

e x t c n s ~ o n

but

t h e ~ - e ; ~ s o n s

pct forward cln n o t

~ 1 1 s t ~ l ' y

a

d e p a r t u r e

fro,o nornwl

Government

p o l i c y .

Your

app l l cak ion

i s

t h e r c f o r e

not approved.

"

M r .

Guns t

submi t t ed

t ha t

s t a t en icn t

WAS

a

mere

a s s e r t i o n b y

t h e o f f l c e r

t h a t

c a r e f u l

c o n s i d e r a t i o n h a d b e e n

g lven .

He

i n v i t e d

t h e

C o u r t

t o

d i s r e q a r d

t h a t

a s s e r t i o n

and

t o

i n f e r

t h a t

t h e

o f f l c e r

h a d

n o t

1.n

€ a c t

g i v e n

c a r e f u l

>	c o n s i d c r a t l o n	t o	t h e	r e l c v a n t	m a t t e r s :	m	so submi t t ing	he
!

i

p o h t e d

Co

v e r y

t h e

b

r e f e r e n c e ,

i e f

i n

t h e

M i n i s t e r ' s

"reasons" of J u l y 1983,

t o

t h e

f a c t

t h a t

" n o

f u r t h e r

e n t r y

p e r m i t s

h a v e

b e e n

q r a n t e d

t o

t h e

a p p l i c a n t s " .

Ilowever,

i n

t h l s

connex lon

two

m a t t e r s

m u s t

be

borne

in mind.

One i s

t h a t

t h e K i n i s t c r ' s

"reasons" were

on

ly

rurn ished

a s

r casons

f o r h is OWI

dcci:,ion

of

5 Xay,

1903 and dicl n o t p u r p o r t t o

ix

r e a s o n s

f o r

t h e

c f f l c r r ' s

d c c 1 s l o r l

o f

7

Jun?,

1982.

Tlic

, .

- ,

.- - - -__,._

, - - ..

G .

other

is t h a t , a1 thouqh

the paragraph

111 t h e o f f i c e r ' S

letter

of 7 June, 1962 was only a br1cf s tc l tc lncnt ,

spparent ly

no

st.eps were

talccn

t o

o b t a i n

an

e l abora t ion

o

f

Cha

t

s t a t cmenr

by

applyj ng

f o r a

" s t a t ewen t in

writ L n q " under S.

13 of

t h e

J u d i c i a l

Review h t .

In

those

c i rcumstances

I am

unable to

see

any

reason

why I should

doubt

t h r :

s t a tement

o f

the

o f f i c e r

thdt

" c a r e f u l

c o n s i d e r a t l o n

has

been

g ivcn

t o

your

a p p l i c a t i o n "

-

f o l l o v e d

i m m e d i a ~ e l y ,

a s

i t

ic,,

by

a

r e f e r e n c e

t o

"the reasons p u t for i ra rd" .

In

my

o p ~ n i o n

t h c r e

i s iio

ground

for concluding

t h a t C h e o f f i c e r f a i l e d

to Cakc

J

r e l e v a n t

c o n s i d e r a t l o n

i n t o

a c c o u n t

i n

t h e

x e r c l s e

of

his

pover

under

S. G of tbe Mlgrat ion Act .

Mr.

G u n s t

s o u g h t

o

p l a c e

some

r e l i a n c e

"upon

rhe

p o t e n t i a l

disruption

t o the

f a n l l y

u n i t "

which

would

flow

fro111 a

r e f u s a l

of

e i t h e r o f

t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n s

f o r

a

temporary

e n t r y

p e r m i t .

my

On

r e a d i n g

-.

of

t h e

m a t e r i a l ,

C h a t

c o n s i d e r a t l o n

was

not

advanced

t o

t h e

o f f i c e r

as

a

" reason"

i n

s u p p o r t

of

t h e

a p p l i c a r i o n s

( s e e

also

t h e

t e r m s

o f

t h e

wrj t t e n

a p p l i c a t i o n s

d a t e d

1 4 May,

1 9 8 2 ) :

i f

such

a

ma t t e r

was

advanced

t o the o f f l c e r ,

d o u b t l e s s

it was given the same

"carefu l	c o n s l d e r a t i o n "	as	t h a t -	a f f o r d e d	t o	t h e	o t h e i -
m a t e r i a l .

A t

t h e

h e a r i n g

D r .

J e s s u p ,

on

b e h a l f

o f

t h e

respondent ,

d id

n o t

o b ~ e c t

o

a widening of rhc grounds

apear? .ng

i n

t hp

am~nder l

?~pp l~ .cz t

1011 so

a s t o i n c l ucl?

orher

.- -~

~ --

._ . - -

. . .

. _

\

qroumls

under

S.

5

of

the

J u c l l c j a l

Rcvi ev

A c t ,

i n c l i ~ d i n g

r e l i a n c e

upon

m

e r r o r 0;'

ldlr:

ba,;cd

upon

a

c o n r e n t l o n

t h a t

t h e

d e c i s i o n

o f

7

June,

1382

was

" S O

unrcasonab le

t ha t

no

rcasondble p r s m could

have

50

exe rc i sed

t he

povc r"

( s ee

S.

5 ( l ) ( f ) and

S.

5 ( 2 ) ( g )

o f

t h e

J d d i c i a l

Revicw Act).

I t wlll

be

c l c a r from

those

words i n S. 5 o f

t h e

J u d i c i a l

Review

Act

that thls Court

does

not

have power t o make a decision upon

e

the

questio:1

wheti:cr

Mr.

and ilrs. Slngh

s oul.d,

on

t h e

m e r i t s ,

h a v e

b e e n

q i v e n

e n t r y

p e r m i t s

-

t e m p o r a r y

or

pel'rnanent - and

therefore

should not express any

opjnion

upon

tha t

cpes ' ixon .

I

c u n p l c t e l y

a g r e e

w i t h

the dictum of

Ileane

J.

i n Sean

Inves tvents

Ptv. Lrd. v MacKelLar

(1981) 3 8 A . L . R .

--

363 a t p.

371, t h a t :-

"The c o u r t m u s t ,

i n V I ~

v i e w ,

b e

v i g i l a n t

o

e n s u r e

'l

t h a t

it.

d02s

not ,

under

the

gu ise

o f

rev iewing

n d m i n i s t r + t i v e

c t e c l s i o n s

o n

c : u c s t i o n s

o f

I . a w ,

t

t r e s p a s s

i n

fields

of

admln i s t r a t lve 6ec i s lon mak ing

i n	r c l s t l on	t o	wb~.ch it	posscs ses	ne l the r	manda	te
n o r	s p e c i a l

,i	q u a l i f l c a t i o n . "

The

C o u r t ' s

power

t o

r e v l e w

t h e

d e c l s l o n

is

a

l imi ted

one .

A s

Fox

J.

sa id

In

Borkov ic

v

M i n i s t e r

f o r

Irmniqrntion

and

Et-hnlc

Affairs

(1981) 39 A . L . R .

186 a t p .

168

I_

.-

"It

i s

p l a i n

t h a t

E n d e r

t h e

A c t

i n

q u e s t i o n

t h i s

court

does

not

have

power

t o make

a

d e c i s i o n on

t.hc

m e r i t s

of

t h e

f a c t u a l

p o s l t i o n

f o r

~ C s e l f .

I t

1 s

p l a i n

t h a t

~t j.5 not

inoitccl

or

elqpovere(i

undcr

the

Act t o cons ider

the

f r c t s f o r

itself for

thc

Lxrpose

of

forminq

s?nrl ? e c l a r i n g

i t s rm

v tew

thti-eon.

of

course ,

j.n

o r~ :e r

$.c

Lpply sonc of t h e

p ~ - o v i s l o n s

oi

!

-

.._"__

."_

.

_

.

. .

. -

!

T h e r e

a r e

m s n p e r a b l e

d l f f l c u l t i e s

l y i n q

in

t h e

paCh of t h e

p r e s e n t

a p p l i c a n t s

in

t h e l r

s u h j s s j o n

th;?L-. t h e

d c c l s l o n

wzs

so

u n r e a s o n a b l e

t h a t

no reasonablc

person

cou1.d

have

so

d e c i d e d .

F i r s t ,

power

t o

g r a n t

a

temporary

en t ry

permit

i s one given

by

t h e M i g r a t i o n A c t t o

an officer

of

t h e

DeparCment - no t

t o

t h i s

Cour

t

.

Secon ; l ly ,

t he

power

qiven i s

a

d i s c r e t l o n a r y

on?.

Thj r r l l y ,

the

i . i ~ q r a t ~ o n

A c t

does not

lay

dorrn

m y c r i

t e r i a g o v c r n l n g

t h e e x e r c i s e

of

t h e d i s c r c t ~ o n .

Four t -h ly ,

there

was

r m t e r i a l . b e f o r e

t h e o f f i c e r

U ~ O I ? which

he

could

have

based

h i 5

d e c i y i o n

t o

r c f u s c

t o

g r x l t

a

i ~ ? r t h e r

temporary

entry

permj

t 011 7 June , 153532.

A l e t t c l - ,

d a t e d

2 4

December,	1S8i.	from	D r .	F.	F i r k i n ,	F . R . A . C . P . ,	of	S t .
..	-.

V i n c e n t ' s

I I o s p l t a l , a f t e r d e a l i n g w l t h h e r

i n e d i c a l c o n d l t i o n ,

concluded with

the following :-

"A reasonable

time-span

t o c a r r y

out t reat :nent

woulcl

t a k z u n t i l

t h ?

end

of

Apri l ,

1 9 8 2 ,

and

t.hIs

could

be

a c h i e v e d i f

you would be prepared

t o e x t e n d

5e1- visa

€or

a

f u r t h e r

t h r e e

m o n t h s .

I

am

happy

CO

f u l l y

s u p p o r t s u c h a c t i o n s p e c j f i c a l l y

on

the

b a s i s

oi

t h e

need

f o r

adequa te

t r

a t rne l ik

o f

hcr

r r e d l c a l

cond l t ion . "

I.

017

a l l t h e

m a t e r i a l

t h a t

w a s

b c f o r e

t h c

o f f i c e r ,

i n c l u d i n g

9

Perhaps J should adcl thaC i.he let-ter, da ted 7 June ,

1 9 8 2 ,

from

t h c

o f f i c e r

t o

Chc

appl jcants

cor ic ludcd

with thc

f o l l o v i n g "paragraph

:-

I

On the whole of t h e

m a t e r i a l

there

1s no

ground

upcn

which

M r .

Singh

can

succeecl

i n

h i s

a p p l i c a t i o n

I n

r e s p e c t

O f

t h e

d e c i s i o n

o f

7

June,

1982

i f

Mrs.

S i n g h ' s

application

i s no t

success fu l .

A s

it

has

no< been e s t abLi shed

tha t

t he dec i s lon

of

7 June, 1982 should he quashed o r

s e t

a s i d e u n d e r

S.

16(1)

o€

t h e

J u d i c i a l

Review

A c t

o r

r e f e r r e d

back

for

f u r t h e r

cons ide ra t . i on ,

t he

app l l ca t i cn

by

each

app l i can t

~n

r e s p e c t

of

that

d e c i s i o n must

he

d l s n i s s e d .

. ' c

10.

111

r c s p c c t

o f

L h e

decls lon

oi

i h e

r e s p o n d e n t

MinlsCer on

5 May,

1983,

~t 1 s c l c d r

from the e v i d e n c e

t h a t

n e ~ . t h c r

a p p l i c a n t

was

"the

ho ldc r

of

a

tcinporary

entry

l

permit" .vihJ.ch !:as

j n Eorce on tha t

day

and

accord ingly

n e j t h e r o f

them

f c l l w i th ln

the

Lcrms

of

S.

6h(

I.) ( c ) oi

the

Migrat ion

Act.

I t was

no t

sugges t ed

t ha t

t he

ap?1 j c a n t s

could

I~r ing

thcmsc. lves within any oLilcr psrdqraph

in

S .

Gh(1)

of

c h a t Act.

I t

f o l 1 . 0 ~ ~

r'roln the provls loi ls of t h a t section

t h a t the respondent on 5 May,

1983 c o u l d

n o t

l a w f u l l y

g r a n t

t o

e i d l e r

applicant

"an

e n t r y

p c r m i t

o t h e r

t h a n

a

temporary

e n t r y p c r m i t "

(6.

GA(8)

) .

A C C O ~ J

ng ly ,

the

a p p l i c a t i o q

ill respcc'.

0:'

tha'.

d e c l s i o n

o€ 5

May,

1983 m u s t

he

dl ;n~.ssed.

For

thc? same

rensons

the

a p p l i c a t i o n

i n

r e s p e c t

of

t h c

t h i r d

e c i s i o n

(fissurning,

contrary

t o the

suhmissm.1

of

D r .

J e s s u p , that. i t

was

a

decision)

will

a l s o be

d lsmlssed .

The

a p p l i c z n c s

a r e

to	p a y t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s c o s t s .

i

1

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Singh, Marjorie Sarawati v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1983] FCA 408

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0

[1983] FCA 408

15 Dec 1983