SZIMA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2006] FCA 1600

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIMA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1600

SZIMA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1519 OF 2006

MADGWICK J
15 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1519 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZIMA
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $3500.

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 1519 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZIMA
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	15 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is, so far as I can see, an utterly legally worthless appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court. 

2. The unrepresented appellant, who has been in Australia on and off for many years (so much so that she regards an address in Hurstville as her permanent residence, although she has lately been seeking refugee status here from her supposed home country of China), given every opportunity to say something in support of her case, even to ask for an adjournment, says she has nothing to say.  This is not surprising. 

3. The Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) dealt to her detriment with the unpromising application it had to consider.  On the application for judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court, Driver FM went to great pains to ensure that even an application for refugee status which, as I have indicated, looked distinctly unpromising, had been dealt with according to law. 

4. There is, as the appellant correctly if unconsciously perceived, nothing to be said for her appeal.  His Honour was clearly right for the reasons he gave.  The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

5. At the conclusion of my above oral reasons, when I asked the appellant if she wished to comment on the amount of costs suggested by the first respondent as appropriate for her to pay, she produced a piece of paper and started reading from it, and I ascertained that she wished to have the interpreter read the document to me.  Given the grounds in the notice of appeal, and the differing but generalised and formulaic nature of the ‘boiler plate’ text which she read, her submissions add nothing to the matter, nor cause me to approach it any differently.  I confirm that the appeal will be dismissed with costs. 

6. Costs are assessed in the sum of $3500. 

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:       23 November 2006

Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr G R Kennett
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Phillips Fox
Date of Hearing:	15 November 2006
Date of Judgment:	15 November 2006