SZFHT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1648

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFHT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1648

SZFHT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1525 OF 2005

GYLES J
10 NOVEMBER 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1525 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZFHT
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 NOVEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The appeal be dismissed.

2.   The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent assessed and fixed at $2,000.00.

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 1525 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZFHT
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	10 NOVEMBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This appeal was commenced by notice of appeal on 29 August 2005 and on 14 September 2005 was fixed for hearing before me today.  It is an appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Barnes of the Federal Magistrates Court (SZFHT v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1205), which was delivered on 9 August 2005. The amended application to that court pursuant to the Judiciary Act1903 (Cth) had been filed on 14 March 2005 seeking relief from a decision of the delegate of the respondent Minister to confirm a decision not to grant a protection visa.

2. The appellant arrived in Australia on a temporary business visa on 16 May 2004.  The delegate's decision refusing the protection visa was made on 6 July 2004.  The appellant sought review of the decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).  The Tribunal notified the appellant, who then had an adviser, that it was unable to make a decision in his favour on the information provided.  He was invited to attend a hearing to give further evidence to present argument in support of his claims.  He declined to do that.  Nonetheless, as I have said, relief was sought in the Federal Magistrates Court and now on appeal to this Court.

3. The appellant does not appear.  This is an excellent illustration of the manner in which the system can be exploited and it is nothing short of a scandal that it can continue to be done in this way.  Apart from the successive waste of time and effort of the tribunals and courts involved, there are the legal costs incurred by the Department, the interpreters who have been involved and so on.

4. The appeal is dismissed.  I order that the appellant pay the costs of the first respondent assessed and fixed at $2,000.00.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.

Associate:

Dated:             16 November 2005

Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	A Markus of Australian Government Solicitor
Solicitor for the Second Respondent Submitting:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	10 November 2005
Date of Judgment:	10 November 2005