SZHQL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 970

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHQL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 970

SZHQL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 888 OF 2006

MADGWICK J
21 JULY 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 888 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZHQL
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 JULY 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is refused with costs, assessed in the sum of $1500.

2.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as the Second 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 888 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

SZHQL
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	21 JULY 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is an application for an extension of time to appeal against orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 3 April 2006.  Federal Magistrate Raphael dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision adverse to the applicant made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) in 1998.  Notwithstanding that the application to review that decision was not made until November 2005, his Honour examined the Tribunal’s published reasons and found no legal error in them. 

2. Ms Rayment for the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has candidly acknowledged that the material available to the Minister does not adequately disprove the applicant’s claim that he did not receive a copy of the judgment of the Court below until a time when he would have been out of time to lodge his appeal.  The respondent does not oppose the applicant’s application on that basis but, rather, because to grant the application would be futile, as the applicant’s substantive case is apparently hopeless. 

3. The complaint sought to be agitated by the applicant, in so far as it involves any ground for questioning the decision of the learned Federal Magistrate, simply says that his Honour: ‘did not find the fear of persecution of the [applicant] and dismissed without any proper investigation.’

4. At an earlier hearing I pointed out to the applicant that, on the face of the proposed notice of appeal and the affidavit in support of his application as they then existed, his case did indeed look hopeless.  He has been given ample time to furnish any proposed amended documents that might suggest any arguable basis for criticism of the judgment of the Court below.  No such document has been filed. 

5. The applicant’s claim is that he needs more time and asks that the Court refer him to a legal aid agency.  The applicant had the benefit of legal advice paid for by the Australian Government in the Court below.  He is in detention at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre and that institution is not short of sympathetic, helpful and knowledgeable visitors.  The applicant says that he has no money, I do not accept that as a basis for allowing the application.  If he could persuade anyone that he had, or might have an arguable case, or that something could be done to help him, there are occasions on which the Court sponsors requests, for example to the New South Wales Bar Association, to provide free assistance, but I do not propose to wear out the Court’s welcome on what seems to me to be a quite hopeless case. 

6. It would indeed be futile to grant the application and I refuse it with costs, assessed in the sum of $1500.

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

Associate:
Dated:       2 August 2006

Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	21 July 2006
Date of Judgment:	21 July 2006