Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 406

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 406

HAKAM SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NO S 82 OF 2000 O'LOUGHLIN J ADELAIDE 11 APRIL 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 82 OF 2000

BETWEEN: HAKAM SINGH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J

DATE OF ORDER: 11 APRIL 2001

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The application be dismissed with costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 82 OF 2000

BETWEEN: HAKAM SINGH

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J

DATE: 11 APRIL 2001

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicants in these proceedings are Hakam Singh, his wife, Gagandeep Kaur and their fourteen-year-old daughter, Amarjeet Kaur. They are from the Punjab in India. The parents, who are in their late forties, arrived in Australia with their daughter on 30 November 1997 and within a month Hakam Singh applied for protection visas for himself, his wife and his daughter. On 6 May 1998, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refused their application. On 26 May 1998, the family applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for a review of that decision; once again, they were unsuccessful. On 6 June 2000, the Tribunal rejected their application. Hakam Singh, on 26 July 2000, lodged an application in this Court, seeking, on behalf of himself and his family, a review of the Tribunal's decision. 2 In answer to the question "why did you leave that country", Hakam Singh, when completing his application for a protection visa, wrote: "The National leaders made promised (sic) to the Sikhs that they would grant special status and an autonomous region in Punjab. The Sikhs decided to live in India. After the Freedom was granted to India, National leaders ignored their promises to the Sikhs. When Sikh's demand for greater autonomous has taken the momentum, then operation Bluestar and Wood Rose were carried on Sikhs sense of honour. Particularly the attacks on Amritdhari's (baptised) Sikhs, daughters and sisters. We are baptised Sikhs. We were tortured many many times by the police. I have lost my patience to tolerate more suffering. I escaped from the country." 3 Although his use of the English language has been strained, it is, in my opinion, quite clear that the male applicant was intending to raise a question of persecution. His counsel, Mr Clisby, submitted that it was persecution that arose as a result of the applicant's political opinion. He did not claim persecution by reason of his membership of a particular social group – a ground that had been raised before the Tribunal but rejected by it. Furthermore, in answer to other questions, the male applicant recounted details of his political activities in support of the independent state of Khalistan and his "illegal detention, tortured and released on unaccounted times" (sic). He then addressed the activities of the police, saying of them: "The police frequently visit our house and searched everything and put the things upside down. This way invading our liberty and privacy. During this search they beat us, and abused us. They often come without any search warrants. We reported matter to higher authorities but no body listen." 4 Hakam Singh further claimed that he has been hospitalised on several occasions as a result of police brutality. He wrote in his application: "Once police took me police station, they first abused me then gave me URINE to DRINK. They asked me about my brother. I did not tell where he was. They put me down and danced on my belly, there after I was hospitalized and operation was done. After this incident, three times, they have taken me for interrogation and hit me on the same place where I had the operation. Consequently I was operated on each occasions. I could not tolerate any more atrocities of the police. I left the country. If I go back I would be same position." 5 The Tribunal made an error, which in my opinion was inconsequential, when discussing the male applicant's brother. The Tribunal said: "The applicant said he thinks his brother is involved in anti government criminal activity and he is prepared to die for Khalsa. The letter from his Sarpanch seems to imply his brother was not involved in the militant activities …