Wold-Mariam, Ex parte- Re Min for Immig

[1998] HCATrans 55

TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS

Brisbane
Level 10
MLC Court
15 Adelaide Street
Brisbane QLD 4000
PO Box 38
Roma Street
Brisbane
QLD 4003
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Townsville
Level 2
Northtown Office
Tower
Flinders Mall
Townsville QLD 4810
GPO Box 1401
Townsville QLD 4810
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B64 of 1997

RE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS and ANOTHER

EX PARTE WOLD-MARIAM

CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON THURSDAY, 26 FEBRUARY 1998 AT 11.08 AM

Continued from 18.2.98

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Wold-Mariam, you appear for yourself today, do you?

MR E.D. WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, because of the uncertain, you know, financial problems with Queensland Legal Aid.

HIS HONOUR:   We will just get the appearances first.  Mr Derrington, you appear for the first respondent?

MR R.M. DERRINGTON:   For the first respondent, may it please your Honour.  Thank you.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, thank you.  Yes, Mr Wold-Mariam, you wanted to say something?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, sir.  Because of the unsettled in your payment problem with the ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   I am having a little trouble understanding you, I am sorry.  Could you speak more loudly, please?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, sir.  Of course, my English is a bit difficult.  I have with me Dr Robert Bos.  He's a Christian person who is to help me, and he understand the way I express and other - he explain English.  So I prefer him to be with me to explain some of my problems and expressing my English.  What I want to say about the - my solicitor, my lawyer, Mr Terry Ogge because he was the one who prepared the submission for today.  But that is unsettled problem about financial cases with the Queensland Legal Aid Office.  Therefore, we are also applying and appealing ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Have you made an application for Legal Aid?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, sir.  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   And when did you make that, Mr Wold-Mariam?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Oh, some two months ago, I think.

HIS HONOUR:   12 months?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Two months ago.

HIS HONOUR:   Two months?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes.  Previously to the Federal Court, it was a year ago we did, a committee of three Judges saw my case and they - they give me a limited amount of money, and then because I appealed to the Federal Court lately after the notification of 28 days, they - they were not able to give me the money because of the failure in the Federal Court.  And then, of course, the Federal Court permitted me that my case is reviewable to that Court, and I did it.  And then I can appeal this time, they saw it, and they said no, I have to appeal again because they are not really very much concerned about my case.  They are not sure of my case.  They say that your solicitor should appeal, and of course Mr Terry Ogge appealed that matter.  Now, it is undergoing a kind of process there, I think.

HIS HONOUR:   Let me just understand this, Mr Wold-Mariam.  Have you made an application for Legal Aid in order to get assistance to this case, that is to make this application to this Court?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, sir.  Yes, your Honour, yes.

HIS HONOUR:   You have, all right.  And that is an application separate from any application you made in the past to get assistance to go to the Federal Court?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Exactly.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  When did you make that application?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Two months ago.

HIS HONOUR:   Two months ago.

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   And have you had any reply or any indication at all from Legal Aid.

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, sir. 

HIS HONOUR:   And what did they tell you?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   They said they are not sure of my case.

HIS HONOUR:   They are not sure of your case.

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes.  Then they give me the privilege to appeal it.

HIS HONOUR:   So, in effect, at first instance they have said you cannot have Legal Aid, but there is a right, is there, to review that application?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   To refuse you Legal Aid;  is that what you are telling me?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR:   Do you have any papers in connection with that, any documents which show that?  You do not have a copy of your application and your reply by Legal Aid?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Not now, I do not.  At home I have it.  I am sorry, I did not have it now with me.

HIS HONOUR:   So when will you know whether you are going to get Legal Aid or not for sure, or whether you are going to be rejected for Legal Aid?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Well, you know, I have given this submission which I have brought it today.  I have also - my solicitor also have written many an appeal letter before everything - they are - they are processing it, I think, in very - the very - I mean, the very - the very soon they will have it.

HIS HONOUR:   One of your problems, I think, Mr Wold-Mariam, is that that submission and even the revised grounds which you have stated, are unlikely to satisfy the necessary legal criteria to enable you even to show a preliminary case, a prima facie case.  I do not know whether you understand, but before - generally speaking, before a Court can deal with a case of the kind that you want to make, you have to formulate, you have to put in clear words a legal basis which you would want to argue in order to get assistance from the Court.  Now, is that clear?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR:   And you have to put the formulation in legal terms - in clear legal terms - and it seems to me that your document, even now, falls a long way short of that;  you understand what I am saying to you?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR:   If you do not understand what I am saying to you, consult the gentleman who has come with you by all means.  Do you want him to sit beside you?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   I do not mind if he does.

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR:   So I say that to you because that problem that you have may also be a problem when the Legal Aid authorities come to consider whether they ought grant you Legal Aid or not.

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR:   Now, I have to say I am very concerned about your case. I think it is a very big responsibility to make a decision that might send somebody back to a dangerous situation, but that is not my decision;  that is a decision that has really already been made by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, sir, that is correct.  I understand all these problems.  I tried my best to have representation by a legal person.  They refuse me.  They completely - even the South Brisbane Legal Service, you know, he said he is overloaded with 200 class 2, 3 - part-time Judges.  I tried to get money and it is completely impossible for me.  I appeal sometimes to Queensland Legal Aid Office.  They - three Judges, experienced Judges, confirmed - interviewed me in detail, showed - seen all my documents.  They confirm it.  The only problem, they said, was it was lately registered.  Therefore, you cannot succeed, but on the actual term they prove that I have every ground to - to appeal and to have Legal Aid from them.

Then, really the only person and only place is the Uniting Church and Dr Robert Bos who helping me.  Otherwise, I have no other person here who is helping me at all, and in a society like Australia a person who come from very problematic country who does not have anything at all without Legal Aid, how can he represent himself.  I have a problem.  I finish my university in another language.  English is completely new to me.  Do I speak it?  Yes.  Therefore, I have no idea really what it is written even in the - by this gentleman, you know.  Sometimes I do not have any idea, really.

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Wold-Marian, what do you suggest.  You see, it is does not seem to me to be - it may not be of much use to you for me simply to give you an adjournment to try to get Legal Aid, because what you seem to be telling me now is that you probably will not get Legal Aid.  Do you understand what I am saying?

MR WOLD-MARIAN:   Well, the Court should see my problem, and give a decision that I am in need of somebody who could legally represent me.

HIS HONOUR:   I do not think ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR WOLD-MARIAN:   Because really, genuine justice could be given if equally I am, you know, represented.

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Wold-Marian, my problem is I cannot order somebody to act for you.  I cannot order anybody to provide money for you to employ a lawyer.  I just cannot do that.  I have no have power to do that, so therefore it does not seem to me that there is a great deal of point in adjourning it.  Let me just hear from Mr Derrington for a moment, do you mind?

MR DERRINGTON:   Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Derrington, I am very concerned about the case.  I am concerned that somebody might be sent back and that something could happen to that person.

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   I know Mr Wold-Marian has had a hearing in the Tribunal, and certainly his grounds now appear to be quite defective, which is your submission.

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   But I am wondering the possibility of perhaps making an order that he be at liberty to make a liberty to the Full High Court under order 55, which I might say has been done on previous occasions in these such matters.  But, look, I will hear you.  What ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR DERRINGTON:   My instructions are to oppose any further adjournment, may it please your Honour.  The grounds would be as, in fact, your Honour has perhaps foreshadowed by your observations, and that is that, on all arguments that have been presented to date, the application for prohibition mandamus and certiorari are undoubtedly defective, and that the applications will fail.

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Derrington, say he were able to show - and I am not saying he can, but say he were able to show that this was a decision that no reasonable Tribunal could reasonably reach or - you know this, I may not have given you the precise formulation, but you know these sorts of grounds I am talking about.

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   Which his probably the only possible ground, I think, that his material might raise.  Assuming he can make that out, and assuming certiorari lies, he might succeed on that ground.  I mean, it is a possibility, is it not, perhaps a remote one, but it is a possibility, I suppose.

MR DERRINGTON:   I cannot cavil with your Honour that it is a possibility but we do not concede at all that it will succeed.

HIS HONOUR:   But you would - I know, I understand that, you would be - it may well be a ground for some prerogative relief if he could make that out.

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   He has been here for quite a long time, has he not?

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes, that is true, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   How long, six or seven years?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Eight years, more than eight years now, sir.

HIS HONOUR:   Thank you, Mr Wold-Mariam.

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes, I think Mr Wold-Mariam arrived in Australia in 1989 or thereabouts.

HIS HONOUR:   And just for my information, how are proceedings before the Tribunal triggered off?

MR DERRINGTON:   First of all an application is made for a protection visa, and a delegate of the Minister makes a determination.

HIS HONOUR:   I understand the procedure after that.

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   So what would have happened if he had not made an application; was there something to precipitate the application?

MR DERRINGTON:   I do not think so, I think that once having arrived in Australia and a person wishes to make an application for refugee status, that is the way that they go about it.  I am not sure that anything such as a threatened deportation or anything of that nature precipitated an application in this case.  My instructing solicitor I think correctly informs me that Mr Wold-Mariam was on a temporary visa here at the time and then applied whilst in Australia.  But if there was anything that acted as a catalyst, I cannot tell your Honour, but as far as we know it was an application made whilst in Australia.

HIS HONOUR:   And what would - if the Court does not intervene in any way following the finding by the Refugee Review Tribunal, well, what would happen?

MR DERRINGTON:   If there was no appeal after the time limited for any appeals ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Well, he has not; his appeal rights are exhausted because he was out of time, that is right, is it not?

MR DERRINGTON:   Certainly in respect of that application, your Honour is correct, although having an application then having been made to the Federal Court, the Department does not do anything until that is exhausted.

HIS HONOUR:   No.  But that has happened; the Federal Court has held that he was out of time and there is no power to extend the time, that is right, is it not?

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes, that is right.  But then an application was made to this Court and of course then the Department holds back, but once it is all over, once there is no avenue of appeal left or not application made, then action will be taken to deport Mr Wold-Mariam.

HIS HONOUR:   How long does that take?

MR DERRINGTON:   It actually can happen fairly quickly in fact, your Honour.  Your Honour may have seen some of the - one of the decisions that I have handed to your Honour.  They do happen in a very short period of time.  But there are reasons for that, and that is why, as your Honour did last time, ask - the courts often ask for an undertaking.  I am not sure, I think - I was hastening to look to see whether there was an avenue of appeal if your Honour refused today, and ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   The position yesterday that if you made an application for an order nisi for a prerogative writ and it was refused, in theory if you go all around the court and keep on renewing ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   I have never heard of anybody actually doing that, but that was the theory I understood, that you can go around and try to find a judge who might give one.

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   But you would probably be an optimist to persist in that.

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes, I think so although there is a right, I understand, of appeal to the Full Bench from a refusal.  And my instructing solicitor kindly points out to me that the Department would not deport anyone until, again, the limitation period for making an appeal from any order has expired.  So on a refusal, if there is a period of appeal then no action would be taken until that period has expired, and no application for an appeal made.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Derrington, on the material that has been put before me, it seems to me that everything you say is almost certainly correct as to the absence of proper grounds and as to the likelihood that in the end he would not succeed. I think that is almost certainly correct. But I am concerned that if somebody not able to get Legal Aid has been in this country for a long time and against whom nothing is said so far as any current problems are concerned, and it is not meaning to cut across the policy that no doubt the Migration Act exhibits - but my inclination is to make an order of the kind that has been made, that he make his application to the Full High Court under order 65. Now, I have not finally decided on that. I will certainly hear you on that. Rule 4 - order 55, rule 4 - I am sorry, no, it is not rule 4.

MR DERRINGTON:   Your Honour, is it - I beg your pardon, but is it rule 3?  Sorry, no, that is ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   It is 2 or 3 I think, Mr Derrington:

May direct that the application be made by notice to a justice in court or to a Full High Court, and may adjourn the application so that notice may be given accordingly.

MR DERRINGTON:   That latter part not being relevant in our case, because notice was given of the first application.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Mr Wold-Mariam, I am really trying to give you another chance, as it were.  And I have not heard Mr Derrington on it first, and I will, but my inclination is to give you an opportunity to apply not just to me but to Full High Court which would be constituted by a number of judges of this Court.  But if I were to do that, I have to tell you that you would need to improve your material.  Your material is really totally defective as it is now.  At the end of the day, I just wonder whether I am doing you a favour because your material has to be put in proper form, and it is not.  It is no good just serving up, as it were, what you have already provided, and I know you may not have drawn it, but what I have got now in your fresh material is really a re-statement of what you said before.  All right, I will just hear from Mr Derrington.  Mr Derrington, I mean no discourtesy to your arguments or anything, your written submissions are very helpful, and you can understand what I am putting to you.

MR DERRINGTON:   I do understand, your Honour.  Can I hand your Honour just some amended submissions which I gave Mr Wold-Mariam this morning.  They deal with some of the questions your Honour raised last week on that interesting question of whether the court has certiorari.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  It seems to be still a little bit unsettled.

MR DERRINGTON:   It certainly does.  It certainly does.  That surprised me, but at least in this case it can be said that prohibition and mandamus are sought and ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   So that it may have a better basis for certiorari than if ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes, there may be that ancillary power.

HIS HONOUR:   ‑ ‑ ‑ it were the only remedy being sought.

MR DERRINGTON:   I would certainly be arguing that the Court has no power, but it is not, so - but I pass on that.  Your Honour, what follows in that application is attempting to deal with the application for a new draft order and grounds, but your Honour has already identified they lack the sufficient material required for an order nisi, and we identify that.  Of course, a lot of that is misconceived and it is no disrespect to Mr Wold‑Mariam, but simply about the nature of prerogative writ.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR DERRINGTON:   Your Honour, cutting to the quick ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   It seems to have been prepared by a lawyer, but ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR DERRINGTON:   Certainly, that is true.

HIS HONOUR:   ‑ ‑ ‑ it does not really state what I think it needs to state.

MR DERRINGTON:   No, it needs to go further, and indeed, the ground which your Honour identified as Wednesbury unreasonableness is perhaps the last gasp, but really, at the end of the day the only one.  And I have to agree with your Honour.  Your Honour, my instructions are, of course, to oppose, but I understand the force of what your Honour has said to me today.  That cannot change my instructions; on the other hand, there is a question we will never, of course, be satisfied by a costs order.  Well, that that is most unlikely. 

And I can mention to your Honour that there is always a danger of precedents being set in such cases.  I am sure your Honour is fully cognisant of that matter, but as your Honour has pointed out, it is an important matter.  But nevertheless, it will always then be raised as another precedent, as "This is what happened," although it has been done before.  So that must be of some consideration to your Honour.  Of course, this Court is not equipped with judges or resources to deal with these matters with applicants who have missed their opportunity before the Federal Court.  Excuse me.

HIS HONOUR:   If I were to direct that the application be made by notice of motion to the Full Court and to adjourn the application, I take it the Commonwealth would not act in any way upon the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.

MR DERRINGTON:   On my instructions, that is correct.  They - we would not act.  It would be ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   You would give an undertaking in that regard.

MR DERRINGTON:   I am sure we can give that undertaking.

HIS HONOUR:   I do not doubt I have got power to stay it, but I would prefer to - I would prefer to have an undertaking.

MR DERRINGTON:   Well, your Honour, yes, of course; that - we can give the undertaking, I am instructed, on the same terms that we gave the undertaking to your Honour on the last occasion, and, your Honour - excuse me - or whatever is required to satisfy your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   There needs to be some time, because I think I would make an order - if I were to make an order, I think I would direct that the application be made by notice of motion expeditiously, and I would not expect you to give any undertaking that extended indefinitely.

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes.  Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Perhaps an undertaking not to act in any way upon the decision of the Tribunal or to seek to deport Mr Wold-Mariam for a month, which would give him time to make his application.

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes.  I am certainly - I am sure we can give that undertaking for that brief period of time.

HIS HONOUR:   Thank you, Mr Derrington.

MR DERRINGTON:   If that was your Honour's order, and it appears that your Honour is intending that, it is likely then the matter may - might - not that I propose to guess the court calendar, but it might come on in June in the Full Court.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes; I am not sure.  It probably would not come on before, I do not think, but ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR DERRINGTON:   No; I would imagine it could not.

HIS HONOUR:   All right.  Is there anything more you would like to say or put to me ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR DERRINGTON:   Your Honour, I cannot assist your Honour any further with any matter.  Your Honour is cognisant of all the issues that we would rely upon.  Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Thank you, Mr Derrington.  Mr Wold-Mariam, is there anything else you want to say to me?

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes.  Well, I am here as an unlawful migrant, which is - it means my visa to stay here is renewable every 28 days, because they told me I am unlawful citizen here.  For my stay here in Australia is very dangerous situation, for I need, you know, a kind of court decision that my case is still continuing; otherwise, they will deport me any time, but ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   There is nothing more that ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes.  No.

HIS HONOUR:   This is an application for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus by an applicant who sought and was refused a protection visa by the second respondent, The Refugee Review Tribunal.  I have excused the Tribunal from further participation in these proceedings. The Tribunal, by counsel, has informed me that it will abide the orders of the Court.  The matter first came before me on 18 February.  The applicant sought an adjournment on that date because he told me his solicitor was unavailable.

I granted an adjournment on terms that the applicant file in the court written submissions in advance of today.  I informed him that it was my tentative view that his material was defective and that, in particular, it would be necessary for him to state the grounds upon which he relied, with some degree of precision.  In the meantime, the Court was advised by the solicitor who Mr Wold-Mariam said was representing him that he will not be appearing for him.

Accordingly, the applicant appears here today unrepresented. Further material has been filed in which an attempt has been made to state grounds in the form of a draft order. The applicant, I observe, did seek to have the decision of the Tribunal reviewed by the Federal Court, pursuant to section 476 of the Migration Act 1958. He failed in that regard because his application was made out of time, and it was held that the Court had no power to extend time.

Hence, he comes to this Court, claiming relief under section 75 of the Constitution. I might say that section 486 of the Migration Act provides that the jurisdiction of the Federal Court is exclusive, save for such jurisdiction as is exercisable under section 75 of the Constitution. It is relevant that section 476 of the Migration Act confines the Federal Court to the exercise of a jurisdiction to review decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal.

The jurisdiction is much narrower than that conventionally exercised by Courts in entertaining applications for traditional prerogative relief.  Questions of importance do remain to be resolved with respect to the High Court's manner of exercise of jurisdiction in these matters:  for example, the availability and scope of the remedy of certiorari, and, possibly, the extent to which the availability and exhaustion of other remedies might provide substantial discretionary bars to applications of the kind which is made here.

Mr Wold-Mariam's difficulty is that the statement of his grounds and supporting material, however generously construed, do seem to raise factual matters and not legal grounds that would provide a basis for prerogative relief.  In a sense, what Mr Wold-Mariam may be trying to articulate is a ground that the decision was one that no reasonable decision-maker could possibly have made.  There may be a question even as to the availability of such a ground in this case.

Mr Derrington, who represents the first respondent, opposes any further adjournment of this matter and also would oppose any order that might be made with respect to the continuation of these proceedings in the Full High Court. 
In The Minister for Immigration and Multi-Cultural Affairs of the Commonwealth and Another Ex Parte Abebe, Number 139 of 1997, heard by his Honour, Gummow J, on 28 January 1998, his Honour said this:

Dealing with refugee claims can be a difficult matter.  It is very often a complex task for an administrative decision-maker to arrive at a view of the facts of the case.  The decision-maker, in order to grant refugee status, must be satisfied as to a number of facts:  who the applicant is, his or her country of nationality, why it was that the applicant left that country, whether the applicant did so for a fear of persecution, and whether that fear of persecution was well-founded, as to the last of which the real chance test will apply.

The principle assertion, so far as I can see, which is made by Mr Wold-Mariam, is that the decision-maker, the Refugee Review Tribunal, mis-applied the real chance test; however, even that is not clearly articulated, and, if it were, unless it were able to be said that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached that conclusion, such a ground would not avail Mr Wold-Mariam.  The applicant tells me that he is still trying to obtain legal aid. 

He has been in this country for a very considerable time now, and it does not seem to be asserted that he would, in any way, attempt to evade what might be the consequences of the implementation of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  In those circumstances, and upon an undertaking to which I will refer shortly, which Mr Derrington offers on behalf of the first respondent on my invitation, I am minded to make a direction, under order 55 rule 2 of the Rules of the Court, that the applicant apply, by notice of motion, to a Full Court, and I would adjourn this application to enable that to be done.

However, the matter cannot be left in abeyance indefinitely.  The form of undertaking, which I have discussed with Mr Derrington, is to the effect that the first respondent will not seek to implement the decision of the Tribunal or to deport Mr Wold-Mariam for a month - Mr Derrington, and, after that, perhaps on not less than three days' notice?

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Would you be prepared to give an undertaking in those terms?

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes, I am certain that that is ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Thank you.

MR DERRINGTON:   ‑ ‑ ‑ perfectly satisfactory.

HIS HONOUR:   And, thereafter, if deportation were contemplated, on three days' notice to Mr Wold-Mariam.  So, the orders will be:

1. That I direct that an application in this matter be made by the applicant to the Full Court;

1. That the undertaking be recorded;

1. That notice of the application to the Full High Court be given to -

probably the first respondent will suffice, Mr Derrington, do you think?

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   ‑ ‑ ‑ to the first respondent; and I order that - I think costs be reserved, Mr Derrington.

MR DERRINGTON:   I can only reiterate what I said last time, but I understand your Honour's position.

HIS HONOUR:   Now, Mr Wold-Mariam, have you understood that?  Probably not.  Well, let me try to explain to you.  I am not going to dismiss your application.  I have directed that you make it to the Full High Court.  The effect of it is that you should make it within a month - that is to say - I think today is the 26th, is it?

MR DERRINGTON:   Yes, it is.

HIS HONOUR:   The 26th.  That is to say you must make it before 26 March.  The Commonwealth - the Minister will not do anything to deport you during that period, and, after that period, if any move is made to deport you, you will still be given three days' notice of it.  Now, having said that, Mr Wold-Mariam, could I make this clear to you:  that there is no point, I do not think, in your filing for hearing by the Full High Court an application in its present form.

You have to do much, much better than that.  Now, I cannot do anything to assist you to get legal advice, but you do need - you do need to obtain good legal advice to enable proper grounds to be prepared.  Otherwise, I am telling you, I think you will be wasting your time.  Now, do you understand what I am ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Yes, sir.  But how can I obtain legal aid?  I am really living some - some very little amount of, you know, aid for my living expense, and my house rent the Uniting Church is paying for me, and that's such kind of situation.  To get legal aid really - very difficult for me.

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Wold-Mariam, I am powerless.  If I could help you, I would, but I am absolutely powerless.  I have no power - and you must listen to me on this.  I have no power at all to get you legal aid or to do anything in that regard.

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   I have one question:  could the Full High Court give me help to get a lawyer?

HIS HONOUR:   No.  They have no more power than I have.  I am a member of that Court.  They have no power to get you legal aid.

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Can Dr Bos explain something about me, please?

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, if you want to translate something for me - by all means, yes.

MR BOS:   Your Honour, my name is Robert Bos.  I am a friend of Mr Wold-Mariam's, and I have known him almost as long as he has been in Australia.

HIS HONOUR:   You are really interpreting some of the things he would have told me; is that right?

MR BOS:   Yes.  I do not know his language - I mean, I have helped him, and my explaining things in simple English that he could understand and sometimes helping him to get his documents into some sort of grammatical English.  That is about the only assistance I am able to offer him, but can I say that I and other people in the Uniting Church will do what we can to ensure that he gets legal aid.  We will help him in his application for legal aid as much as we can.

HIS HONOUR:   He has got to get informed legal aid.

MR BOS:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   These are very technical applications, and you understand he needs proper advice on them, and what I have done is in effect give him another chance.

MR BOS:   Thank you.

MR WOLD-MARIAM:   Thank you.

HIS HONOUR:   All right.  Anything further, Mr Derrington?

MR DERRINGTON:   No, may it please your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Thank you.  All right.  Adjourn the Court, please.

AT 11.51 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
INDEFINITELY