Kurtze, Harmut Siegfried v Mitchell, Peter & Anor [1983] FCA 172

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION - order of review of Magistrate's decision that

applicant be detained in custody for 7 days pursuant to s.38

of the Migration Act.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ~ investing a Supreme Court of a State with federal jurisdiction pursuant to s.32A of the Federal Court

of Australia Act, 1976.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, ss. 5, 15

Migration Act, 1958, ss. 38, 39, 40

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s.32A

H.S. KURTZE v. MR PETER MITCHELL, STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE AT BRISBANE AND THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

QLD G37 OF 1983

SHEAHAN J. is BRISBANE " 5 AMG 105 24 JUNE 1983 Vad

=<per fic

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G37 of 1983 GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN : HARMUT STEGFRIED KURTZE

Applicant AND: MR PETER MITCHELL, STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE AT BRISBANE First Respondent AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMEGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Second Respondent SHEAHAN J. 24 JUNE 1983

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have before me an application for an order of review in which the applicant is Harmut Siegfried Kurtze and the first respondent is Mr Peter Mitchell, Stipendiary Magistrate in Brisbane, a prescribed authority within the meaning of s.40 of the Migration Act 1958. The second respondent is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The application, in substance, is to review an

order of the first respondent that the applicant be detained

in custody for a period of seven days pursuant to s.38 of the Migration Act 1958. The basic ground on which fhe application 1s argued is that the order of the magistrate was not lawfully made, and that the applicant at the time of the application of the order was unlawfully detained in

custody.

Ww

Basically, the substance of the argument in favour of the applicant is that the first respondent, Mr Mitchell, could not be reasonably satisfied that the period of detention ordered by him was reasonably required in order to enable the second respondent to consider whether the applicant 25 a prohibited immigrant, and whether a deportation order should be made in respect of him. The matter comes before me pursuant to s.32A of the Federal