SZDBT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 514

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZDBT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2005] FCA 514

SZDBT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 464 of 2005

WILCOX J
27 APRIL 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 464 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZDBT APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	27 APRIL 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.

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 464 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZDBT APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	27 APRIL 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an appeal against a decision of Federal Magistrate Smith dismissing an application to review a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). 

2. In my capacity as Acting Chief Justice last week, I made a direction, pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), that the appeal be heard and determined by a single judge. 

3. The Tribunal's decision was given on 24 May 2000.  The appellant waited until 2004 before filing an application for prerogative relief in relation to that decision.  The application that he then filed in the Federal Magistrates Court, was heard and determined on 7 March 2005.

4. This morning the appellant, who appeared on his own behalf, handed me a document called ‘Amended Notice of Appeal’.  This notice sets out a number of purported grounds of appeal.  I asked the appellant about the document.  He told me it had been provided to him by a friend.  The form of the document is familiar to me.  It has been used in many cases before the Court, with some variations to refer to the circumstances of the particular appellant.  When I asked the appellant about the document, he said he did not understand it.  He was unable to explain to me the claims the document intended to raise.  Under those circumstances, I concluded it would be an inappropriate exercise of discretion for me to grant leave to the appellant to file and rely upon this document.

5. I invited the appellant to put before me any submissions which he had, and understood, which went to the question whether the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error.  I explained the meaning of that term.  The appellant told me there was no submission he could put.  He said the evidence he gave to the Tribunal was true.  He felt the Tribunal should have believed him.  I pointed out to the appellant that this raised a matter of fact and was outside the review jurisdiction of this Court.  The appellant accepted that situation.  In the result, nothing was put which might activate the Court's power to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.

6. The learned magistrate dealt with a number of matters put to him by the appellant.  None were matters of real substance.  The major submissions put to the magistrate seem to have concerned the facts of the case.  In the result, the magistrate indicated he could find no error of law or of fact that would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition.

7. I respectfully agree with that summary of the situation.  On my reading of the Tribunal's decision, there is no arguable jurisdictional error.  The appeal must be dismissed. 

8. I order that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:             3 May 2005

The Appellant appeared in person.
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	27 April 2005
Date of Judgment:	27 April 2005