Sukarno, Anton Sulistyanto v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs

[1984] FCA 199

Re: ANTON SULISTYANTO SUKARNO
And: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS
No. G196 of 1984
Practice

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Bowen C.J.
Sheppard J.
Morling J.

CATCHWORDS

Practice - Leave to appeal out of time form Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Relevant considerations.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, sub-s.44(2A).

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 29:6:1984

ORDER

The application be dismissed.

JUDGE1

This is an application by Anton Sulistyanto Sukarno for an order extending the time for appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, constituted by Beaumont J., given on 24 February 1984. The Tribunal decided that a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that the applicant be deported from Australia be affirmed.

1. The time for appeal which is fixed by sub-s.44(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 is 28 days from the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision of the Tribunal is furnished to the person concerned or within such further time as the Federal Court of Australia, whether before or after the expiration of that day, allows.

2. The applicant comes to us approximately four months after the date on which the Tribunal's decision was conveyed to him. In the circumstances of this particular case two matters arise for consideration. First, whether the reasons he has shown for his delay are such as to excuse the delay and would justify us in allowing him to institute an appeal beyond the time set down by the statute. The second question is whether the applicant has demonstrated that his appeal may have sufficient prospects of success to make it just that he should now be allowed to proceed with it.

3. As to the first question the evidence is somewhat sketchy but in the result we would take the view that in the circumstances of this case, the applicant should not, by his delay, be shut out from appealing if there appears to be substance in his appeal. As to the second question, Counsel for the applicant appears to us to have advanced every argument which may usefully be put in favour of the applicant's case and we have given careful consideration to the submissions which he has put to us. However, in our view there is not in any of those submissions sufficient substance to give rise to any reasonable prospect of success in the appeal.

4. In the result we are of opinion that the application for extension of time must be dismissed. We have been advised by Counsel for the Minister that he does not seek any order for costs. The order of the Court will be that the application for an order extending the time for appeal against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, given on 24 February 1984, be dismissed.