SZTGK v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.1)

[2014] FCCA 2401

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTGK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.1) [2014] FCCA 2401

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application to review decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – application for referral for legal assistance or for an adjournment – application refused.

Legislation: 

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.12.02

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27

Applicant: SZTGK

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2131 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Barnes

Hearing date: 8 October 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 8 October 2014

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Applicant: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The application is refused.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 2131 of 2013

SZTGK

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  In submissions in reply the Applicant asked the Court to provide him with legal representation.  I take this to be an application for a referral for legal assistance.  In the alternative he appeared to seek an adjournment to obtain his own legal assistance.  For the reasons that follow I am not satisfied that either a referral or an adjournment is warranted in the interests of justice.

2. The Court has the power under r.12.02 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules to refer a party for legal assistance. It may also grant an adjournment if satisfied that it is in the interests of justice and the parties. It is relevant to have regard to any prejudice as the result of an adjournment and also to the efficient and proper use of court resources (see Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27).

3. In relation to the issue of referral I have had regard to all of the circumstances insofar as I am able to do so on the material before the Court, including the matters referred to in r.12.02(2). However, in this case I am not satisfied that a referral is warranted.

4. As to the means of the Applicant or his capacity to obtain legal assistance, he was in a position to obtain a fee exemption in relation to his application for review of the decision of the Tribunal.  I asked him if he had taken any action to obtain legal assistance or advice, noting that he lodged his application over a year ago.  He said that he was not really aware of what to do.

5. I have had the advantage of detailed submissions from the First Respondent in relation to the merits of the application for review of the Tribunal decision and have heard from the Applicant what he wished to say in that respect.  On the material before the Court, this is not a complex case.  Nor is the nature of the matter such that it would be of assistance to the Applicant and/or the Court in future conduct of the proceedings to have the assistance of counsel or other legal representation.  The proceedings are not of such complexity as to warrant such assistance.  In all the circumstances I do not propose to exercise my discretion to refer the matter for legal assistance.  

6. Nor do I consider it appropriate to adjourn the matter to enable the Applicant, at this late stage, to obtain legal representation.  The Applicant has had ample time had he wished to obtain legal assistance.  He has taken no action to obtain representation.  He has not given a satisfactory explanation for his failure to do so.  Having regard to all the circumstances, including the length of time the matter has been before the Court and the effect of any such adjournment on court resources, I am not persuaded that it is in the interests of justice and of the parties for there to be an adjournment.  Hence insofar as the Applicant seeks an adjournment that application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Barnes

Associate: 

Date:  21 October 2014