WZANN v Minister for Immigration & Anor

[2009] FMCA 643

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WZANN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2009] FMCA 643

MIGRATION – Protection visa application – application for adjournment – no pro bono assistance – late receipt of submissions.

Applicant: WZANN

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: PEG 34 of 2009

Judgment of: Lucev FM

Hearing date: 6 July 2009

Date of Last Submission: 6 July 2009

Delivered at: Perth

Delivered on: 6 July 2009

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr S. Thackrah

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The hearing be adjourned to 10:15am on 12 August 2009.

2. The costs of today be reserved.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

PEG 34 of 2009

WZANN

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore reasons edited from transcript)

1. The applicant comes before the Court today as a result of orders made on 9 April 2009 listing the matter for hearing today, with the provision that the first respondent file and serve an outline of submissions at least seven days before the hearing, that was order 5 of the orders of
   9 April 2009. There was also, at the request of the applicant, a referral of the matter to the registry’s pro bono panel, to see whether or not any solicitor might be able to assist the applicant in his case.

2. Dealing first with the referral for a pro bono lawyer. As the Court has indicated, the matter was referred to the registry’s pro bono panel to see whether or not legal assistance generally in relation to the proceeding, including representation and advice, could be provided to the applicant. Regrettably, no legal practitioner has come forward to provide that advice. That happens from time to time. The majority of applicants to this court in applications for judicial review of Refugee Review Tribunal decisions are self-represented. It is not the case that the applicant is entitled to have a legal representative. All that the Court can do is see whether anyone is willing to assist. The Court has done that and no one has come forward to provide pro bono assistance.

3. In those circumstances, the applicant will have to represent himself at hearing. The fact that there is no pro bono assistance and the fact that the applicant is not legally represented is not, in the Court’s view, a basis on which to adjourn this matter.

4. With respect to the late notice of the submissions it appears, from what the Court is told, that the applicant has only just received those submissions this afternoon before Court. Mr Thackrah has, and the applicant acknowledges that Mr Thackrah has, taken him through those submissions prior to the Court convening.

5. In circumstances where:

   a)the applicant is self-represented;

   b)the applicant has not received the first respondent’s submissions in accordance with the timetable provided for by the Court;

   c)the applicant does not have English as a first language; and

   d)the relevant documents are in English and not his native language,

   the Court is of the view that there is prejudice to the applicant in the proceedings going on this afternoon.

6. The matters to which the Court has just referred are, in the Court’s view, sufficient grounds for an adjournment of the proceedings. They are grounds for the adjournment of the proceedings because, as the Court has indicated, they do give rise to prejudice to the applicant. There is, in the Court’s view, no prejudice to the respondents in an adjournment of these proceedings at this stage and in those circumstances.

7. The applicant should be clear that it is his responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary from hereon in, to have the first respondent’s submissions and the contents of the court book interpreted for him.

8. It is not for the respondents’ solicitors or for the Court to provide translated documents to him, so no doubt the applicant will make inquiries within his community to see whether someone can translate those documents for him, or he might approach one of the many migrant advice centres or the Citizens Advice Bureau to see whether or not they may be able to assist him with respect to having those documents translated or interpreted.

Conclusion and Orders

1. In summary, the fact that the applicant has no pro bono assistance is not a ground for adjournment, but the fact that he received the first respondent’s submissions late is a ground for adjournment.

2. The Court will order that the hearing be adjourned to 10.15am on 12 August 2009 and that the costs of today be reserved and given what the court has said today, the applicant will need to be ready to go on that day, come what may.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Lucev FM

Deputy Associate: Susan Dinon

Date: 6 July 2009