Addarage v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1145

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Addarage v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1145

PREETHI VIRAJ JAYARUK ADDARAGE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 165 OF 1999 EINFELD, BRANSON and HELY JJ SYDNEY 13 AUGUST 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 165 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: PREETHI VIRAJ JAYARUK ADDARAGE

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGES: EINFELD, BRANSON and HELY JJ

DATE: 13 AUGUST 1999

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1 This is an appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Court given on 5 February 1999. The matter before Justice Whitlam was a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 25 May 1998 affirming a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration not to grant a protection visa to the applicant and his wife.

2 The first matter dealt with by his Honour was whether there should have been an adjournment of the hearing in order to permit the appellant to obtain legal advice. We have considered the decision in that respect. It is our view that his Honour had a discretion in the matter as to whether or not to grant the adjournment and that in the circumstances to which he referred in his reasons for judgment, the exercise of his discretion not to grant the adjournment was not a miscarriage.

3 When the appeal was called today, the appellant again appeared unrepresented. He told us that he does not have a lawyer and has not been able to obtain one. It has emerged in the course of this appeal that in March this year, after the first instance hearing, the Australian Government Solicitor wrote to the appellant and urged him to obtain a lawyer to assist him in this appeal. It was pointed out to the appellant in the letter that a lawyer was an important element in his presentation of the appeal and the appellant was given two organisations to approach to assist him to obtain a lawyer, viz. the Legal Aid Commission and the Law Society. It appears that the appellant approached both of these organisations but was refused assistance after the circumstances of his case had been considered, on the ground that his case was not strong enough to justify the making available of legal aid.