SZEBY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1377

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZEBY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1377

MIGRATION – no point of principle

SZEBY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1287 OF 2005

MOORE J
12 SEPTEMBER 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1287 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZEBY
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent's 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	NSD 1287 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZEBY
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	12 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 13 July 2005 dismissing an application for judicial review brought by the appellant in relation to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 8 June 2004.  An earlier decision of the Tribunal had been set aside by the Federal Magistrates Court on 23 December 2003. 

2. In the proceedings before the Federal Magistrate leading to the judgment of 13 July 2005, the appellant was assisted by counsel acting pro bono.  The amended application filed raised one issue, concerning the way in which the Tribunal, on one view of its reasons, had dealt with the question of whether the appellant had a well founded fear because of his religious beliefs.  Remarks were made by the Tribunal concerning an incident involving the appellant's wife and her arrest and it appeared to pose, on one view of its reasons, a question about whether she had been arrested simply due to her religion.

3. The notice of appeal filed in this court does not identify, as far as I can discern, any arguable error on the part of the Federal Magistrate.  The same can be said of the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant.  At the hearing the appellant appeared to raise one issue.  He invites the court to appoint someone to conduct a medical examination to address his mental health and examine the relationship between his present situation and the circumstances which on his account he experienced in India before arriving in Australia.  That submission may have relevance in two respects in this appeal. 

4. First, his mental health might be taken to be an application for an adjournment though not stated in those terms.  However, it is clear that the appellant is able to articulate as best he can the case he wishes to put in the appeal.  Further, there is no evidence before me which would suggest that he is suffering from a disability that precludes him conducting the appeal. 

5. The second respect in which his mental health may be relevant might concern the approach adopted by the Tribunal when it heard and determined his application.  However, it is clear from a reading of the Tribunal's decision that the Tribunal was astute to ensure that it was satisfied that he could explain his claims and give evidence about them.  I make those observations without descending into any detailed consideration of the applicable legal principles which counsel for the respondent has submitted can be gleaned from the decision of the High Court in SGLB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] HCA 32; (2004) 207 ALR 12.

6. Nothing has been raised by the appellant in the notice of appeal or outline of submissions that would suggest any error on the part of the Federal Magistrate.  In those circumstances the appeal should be dismissed with costs. 

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:            26 September 2005

The Appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the First Respondent:	GR Kennett
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	12 September 2005
Date of Judgment:	12 September 2005