SZJRP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 813

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJRP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 813

SZJRP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 602 OF 2007

ALLSOP J
11 MAY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 602 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZJRP
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 MAY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The stay granted by order 5 on 30 April 2007 be dissolved.

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 602 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZJRP
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE:	11 MAY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 30 April 2007 I made various orders numbered 1 to 7.  The somewhat unusual orders 5, 6 and 7 were explained in my reasons for judgment on that day.  In particular, [11] of those reasons was a summary of exchanges which occurred between myself, the applicant and Ms Nanson.  It seemed to me that when settling the extempore reasons I should include a simple explanation of what occurred.  Paragraph 11 attempts to be a summary of the essence of the transcript.

2. As can be seen from a reading of those reasons, I dealt with the application overlooking an adjournment application that had been made informally to the Court by letter the previous week.  The Registry had informed the applicant, who was in detention, that I would deal with the adjournment application on the day in question, that is, 30 April 2007.  When the matter was called on I dealt with the substance of the matter.  The applicant, if I may respectfully say so and without wishing either to be presumptuous or cause offence, is a young lady who may have felt somewhat intimidated by the occasion and did not remind me that she had made an adjournment application.  That is not a criticism of her and I do not wish the way I have put it to be in any way disrespectful.  It explains why she did not remind me on the day of her application.  On the day I recalled, with the assistance of my associate, that the application had been made.

3. Thus, I granted the applicant over a week to put on further material as to why my approach to the application should be reconsidered.  No further submissions were filed or served and the applicant has indicated to me today that she does not wish to put anything to me about that matter.  Therefore, it is appropriate that I make the following orders today:

   The stay granted by order 5 on 30 April 2007 be dissolved.

4. So, the orders that I made previously, being those numbered 1 to 4, will take effect. 

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

Associate:

Dated:       4 June 2007

The Applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter:
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Ms A Nanson
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	11 May 2007
Date of Judgment:	11 May 2007