Keg stax 2Q RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G297 of 1986 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: Donald Stanley Thompson and Merle Thompson Applicants AND: The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Respondent CORAM: BURCHETT J DATE: 23 JULY 1986 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT In this matter, an application has been made for a stay of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and of the decision of a delegate which was the subject of the former decision, that the applicants be deported from Australia, pending the hearing of an appeal to the Full Court of this court. The application comes before me pursuant to Order 53 Rule 9. The application is opposed on the ground, as Mr Hyndman put it, that it appears there has been no error, and he further 2. put that there cannot be seen any obvious errors of law which would warrant the appeal. Nothing has been urged, if I should not accept those submissions, on the balance of convenience. On the other side, it was put that the female applicant has been at large since July of 1984 and the male applicant since July of 1985, and it has not apparently been thought necessary to take either of them into custody at any stage since those dates. There thus appears to have been no suggestion, and there is no suggestion put before me, that they would seek to abscond during the pendency of an appeal, or if the decision went against them. They have not so sought to abscond when the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal went against them. I have perused the reasons of the learned Deputy President in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the notice of appeal. The question is not, of course, whether there has been an error. That is the very question which it is for the Full Court to determine. It does not seem to me that it can be said of this appeal that it is obviously doomed to failure, or that it is lacking in bona fides. I think that in accordance with the ordinary principles the applicant has made out a case that the appeal has sufficient prospects to warrant the grant of a stay. 'luted: ard Fuly , 18 ht -yctoet tlicand the twe (2) { co Garckelt 3. I think that conclusion can be more readily drawn in a case where the balance of convenience is so completely in favour of the applicants, though, of course, these matters are not decided by balance of convenience alone. What I do is, I order a stay as sought pending the hearing and determination of the appeal or further order of the court, but I condition that stay upon the condition that the applicants will proceed with all due expedition in respect of the appeal, and I will grant liberty to the respondent to apply on three days notice, so that there will be a remedy should any failure of expeditious proceeding with the appeal become apparent. I think the costs of this application should simply be reserved. Jae oy are & true copy cf the .or Jud.menut herein of his Honouy e.4_ Auaclar a Associate