JUDGMENT Wo. SS\ 7 SS IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G281 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: ROBERT EDWARD MILNE Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 11 MARCH 1988 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDEPS THAT: 1. the application be dismissea; 2. the applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders 1s dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G281 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: ROBERT EDWARD MILNE Applicant AND: MINISTER _FOR_ IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent PINCUS J. 11 MARCH 1988 EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This 1s an application by Robert Edward Milne, of the Miami Hotel, 2043 Gold Coast Highway, Miami, Queenslanc. Mr. Milne 15 a journalist. The application was filed in this Court on 14 December 1987 and by 1t the applicant sought an order to review conduct of the respondent with respect toa determination of refugee status. The application 1s brought ona number of grounds. For example, it is said that in exercising statutory power under s.6A(1)(c) of the Migration Act 1958, irrelevant considerations were taken into account. The provisions of s.6A(1)(c) are as follows: "An entry permit shall not be granted to a non-citizen after his entry into Australia unless one or more of the following conditions is fulfilled in respect of him, that is to say - (c) he is the holder of a temporary entry permit which is in force and the Minister has determined, by instrument in writing, that he has the status of refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees that what was done at Geneva on 28 duly 1951 or of the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees that was done at New York on 31 January 1967". The application also suggests that the power which was exercised was exercised at the behest of another, and that the rules of natural justice were breached. During the course of discussion of the matter, the applicant confined the apolication largely to two matters. Furst of all, he contended that the relevant committee, the DORS Committee, 15 1llegal, and secondly he urged upon me the view that its illegal activities had caused him considerable financial loss, and he asked for an order for damages in a sum exceeding $3,000,000. Looking at the matter broadly, the applicant has made allegations to the committee and in this Court that, under the Nixon administration and subsequently the Reagan administration in the United States, from which country he comes, he has been subjected to tactics on the part of secret service authorities, in particular the C.I.A., to which he takes exception. It may be sufficient to refer to one of these allegations by way of example. In exhibit F to his affidavit filed in this matter on 14 December 1987, which is a letter dated 2 June 1987 to the Acting Director of the DORS Committee, the applicant explains an event which occurred some time ago, when he was about to leave Hawaii. He said this was in early April 1973 and, in substance, says that he left without telling anyone that he was leaving. I deduce that he took this step because of the surveillance to which he claims to have been subjected. He says: "What I wanted to leave behind was all the residents on my floor which seemed to spend the day worrying about where I was going or who I would be seeing, of the times I opened my door at night and found one door on each of the stairways opened to notice who would be walking by." He then recounts an incident which happened at the airport. He goes on to say: "The aircraft was packed solid and the only empty seat was next to me. Once when I went to the to1llet, the aisles were empty and everyone seemed asleep. But when I came out there were people everywhere talking, at all the doors and blocking the aisles. It was not hard under these strange conditions to realize something wasn't normal because these strange happenings were occurring too often." The applicant gives other examples of the treatment of which he complains, and I should add that he has apparently been subjected to some treatment to which he takes exception in this country, being wrongly confined in a mental institution and wrongly charged with begging. However, to come to the specific point to which the applicant has directed his attention today, it appears to be a suggestion that the existence and functioning of the DORS Committee are illegal. The applicant has explained to me that his idea in bringing these proceedings has been not only to recover the sum of $3,000,000 to which I have referred above, but also to do some good for other refugees. He regards himself as a refugee from persecution in his home country, the United States of America. Some of the general complaints he makes about the DORS Committee and its functioning are that 1t is unprofessional; that it did not take him seriously; that it lacks understanding of the goals and spirit of the relevant legislation; and matters of that sort. He has also contended that the discovery in the case was inadequate. In the end, however, the matter which I have to determine 1s whether the applicant, Mr Milne, who has shown considerable legal ability, has placed before me anything which would induce one to think that his complaints have substance in law as opposed to fact. My function, of course, under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 1s to correct legal errors. I do not have any duty of general surveillance of the operations of the DORS Committee. In my opinion, nothing which has been placed before me could possibly support the submission which has been made, that the very existence and whole function of the DORS Committee are illegal. JI therefore propose to dismiss the application. The application is dismissed. The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed. ; certify thar this and che Cp preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for Judgment herein of His Honour Mr. Justice Pincus A. dum UN Bsociate Dated // Mavch 1999