é Btn 7 ' JUDGMENT No. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA bb3, /.81.. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION No. G198 of 1987 CORAM: DATE: PLACE: On Appeal from the General Administrative Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal BETWEEN: AHMAD BAKRI Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent Preven = 2 DEC 1987 FEDERAL COURT AUSTRALIA oF PRINCI Fase Davies, Beaumont and Gummow JJ. 30 October 1987 Sydney REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE) Davies J.: Mr Justice Beaumont will express the view of the Court. Beaumont J.: I will deal now with the application for the adjournment of the appeal. This 1s an application for the judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals ~~ Tribunal in a deportation matter in the form of an appeal arising under sub-s. 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). Such an appeal is a matter arising in the original jurisdiction of the Court and is confined to questions of law only; there is no general right of appeal in such a case. The history of the matter may be shortly stated. The appeal was fixed on a callover taken by the Chief Judge on 26 August this year. The Chief Judge was assured that the matter was ready for hearing and the parties sought a date at the end of October. Shortly before the appeal was listed for hearing the solicitors for the applicant wrote to the Registrar of the Court by letter dated 29 October 1987, foreshadowing an application for adjournment. Upon the appeal being called on for hearing the applicant's counsel sought an adjournment of the hearing so as to provide further time for the preparation of the argument of the appeal. We called upon counsel to indicate to us what in his submission were the points of law, as he perceived it, arising on the appeal, and we had the benefit of submissions from counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondent on this aspect of the matter. Having heard from both counsel it does not appear to us that any serious question of law can arise in the appeal. les ceeces ee ero cee wee SNe ne meee a8, % " a The complaints which the applicant now makes, as we would understand it, are twofold. First, he says that the Tribunal erred in the course of assessing the risk of recidivism in concluding that this risk was not minimal. Secondly, the applicant claims the Tribunal fell into error in failing to give sufficient weight to the perce1rved benefits of the applicant remaining in Australia. In our view neither of these complaints raises any question of law, they are questions of fact, perhaps of opinion or judgment but they are not questions of law and no useful object would be achieved by adjourning the appeal as it is sought to permit a further elaboration of these complaints. As we see it, the real basis of the adjournment application 1s the prospect, 1f there is one, that there may be other possible points of law which could conceivably emerge if further preparation in the matter were permitted. Mr vernon, who appears for the applicant, has spent some time this week in preparation for the matter and we have heard the submissions and had the benefit of the submissions he has made to us today. We of course have read the decision for ourselves and it is our view that we cannot be satisfied that the grant of the indulgence now sought by the applicant will or could lead to the discovery of any other serious points of law. In these circumstances, the Court proposes to refuse the adjournment application. reese ee cae ay operetta = a Davies J.: Davies J.: Davies J.: say further on the appeal? Mr Vernon: No, your Honour. Mr Hosking? Mr Vernon, 1S there anything then that you want to Mr Hosking: In those circumstances no, your Honour. As already stated by Mr Justice Beaumont, this 1s an appeal raising points of law only and the Court is not satisfied that there is any point of law involved in the appeal. I certify that this and the 3 The appeal will therefore be dismissed, with costs. preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court. Associate: Date; 30 October 1987 Counsel for the applicant: Solicitors for the applicant: Counsel for the respondent: Solicitors for the respondent: Date of hearing: Mr C.B. vernon Karam Ramrakha & Company Mr G.S. Hosking Australian Government Solicitor 7 30 October 1987