Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Srimonthon v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1023
DONPORN SRIMONTHON v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N257 of 2001 MADGWICK J SYDNEY 13 JULY 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N257 of 2001
BETWEEN: DONPORN SRIMONTHON
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER: 13 JULY 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs. 3. Orders 1 and 2 are not to take effect for 28 days and within that period the applicant has liberty to apply to the Court on 48 hours notice. THE COURT DIRECTS THAT: 1. The respondent's solicitors take all reasonable steps to effect personal service of the orders within 21 days at the applicant's address provided to the Court.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N257 of 2001
BETWEEN: DONPORN SRIMONTHON
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE: 13 JULY 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (revised from transcript) HIS HONOUR: 1 In this matter the applicant has failed to appear for the hearing. She did, however, file an application seeking judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dated 20 February 2001 which affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing the grant of a protection visa.
Background 2 The applicant is a Thai national in her 30's. She arrived in Australia on 24 June 2000 and lodged a protection visa application on 4 August 2000. She claims to have obtained a university degree and indeed to have taught at a university in Thailand, although she never named the institution. The applicant alleges that she became a student activist in 1998 in the interests of the elimination of corrupt government in Thailand and the establishment of a truly democratic political system there. 3 The applicant claimed before the Tribunal that, by reason of her participation in demonstrations she was arrested, detained and tortured and that she became the "adviser in general" of a united student organisation which intended enlarging the scale of public demonstrations. In consequence of this she claims that in September 1999 she was again arrested, detained for a couple of months and tortured, being released, she says, only after her family bribed the police. She continued her protests in 2000 but had information from a governmental source that police had monitored her and her arrest was imminent. She then decamped to Australia.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate