\Y2. JUDGMENT No, 228 MES" AN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) Nos. G377-381 of 1985 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) , BETWEEN: EUSHFARANY SINNATHAMBY S OPS. Applicants aera AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS . Respondent CORAM: Beaumont, J. DATED: 31 December 1985 EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT The applicants seek to be released from detention pending the hearing of their appeal, which 15 provisionally fixed for hearing on 20 February next. In my opinion, the applicants have failed to damonstrate any arguable ground of challenge, whether of fact or of law, te 1) the judgment cf Moriing J., the subject cf their aprest. If must therefore assume that the decisicn of Merling J. 2:i72,7simna the ww ue) as) pay ry na fu =] cr us c " eclsims was correct and that tho arctsl from hist It must follow that 1t 15 not apprepriats (hr u "I rt ct w r al now interfere with the ordinary processes of the Law. The applications for release from detention must therefore be refused. A temporary stay of execution of the deportation orders has been granted by Morling J. until 14 danuary. The matter w2ll be listed for directions on that day before another Judce. ' Ths parties should then be in a position to inform the Court whether the appeal is ready to proceed, in particular whether preparation of the appeal books is proceeding expeditiously. It should be noted that in support of their application For release from detention, the applicants offered undertakings to report regularly to officers of the respondent department. Certain other parties offered securities by way of suretyship to support these undertakings. These undertakings and these Securities may or may not be seen by the Executive as an appropriate mechanism to hold the situation pending the outcome or the appeal. Whether this 1s 50 is entirely a matter for the Executive. It 1s not for the Court to advise the Executive cn such questions of administration of the Migration Act, for which the Executive alone bears the responsibility. It 1s hardl- necessary to say that the Court has no overriding surervizcry role in the merits of these matters. The Court's function i.2 tt ot) D ad determine whether the Executive made anv error of law ir wis decision to deport. Horling J. found no such errecr. ané no vsaiil reason for upsetting that decision has, in my opinicn, treen advanced here. The Court can therefore take the matter nr mn fa) further at this stage. It now rests with the Minister and hi Ly advisors. " Finally, it should be noted that on 16 Decemrer tre= applicants réquested a statement of reasons under s.13 of th ih Judicial Review Act. One can only speculate whether, when given, . those reasons would assist the applicants. I make the following orders: First, the applications for release from detention are refused: second, the matters are stood over to 14 January 1986 at 10.15 a.m. before Lockhart, J. 3 Fe Tae as 4 r3 Ptr Suatmert ners eusuies Beaunen