FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Sangachini v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1217 HOSHANG NAJAFI SANGACHINI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS W 128 of 2001 TAMBERLIN J PERTH 23 AUGUST 2001 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 128 OF 2001 BETWEEN: HOSHANG NAJAFI SANGACHINI APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J DATE OF ORDER: 23 AUGUST 2001 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The matter is remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal, differently constituted, for reconsideration. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 128 OF 2001 BETWEEN: HOSHANG NAJAFI SANGACHINI APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J DATE: 23 AUGUST 2001 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I propose to make an order in this matter granting the application for review. There is no objection to the making of the order, as I understand it. I will make an order that the matter be remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") for re-consideration, and that the RRT should be differently constituted. I will reserve any questions of cost with liberty to apply. Normally, of course, costs will follow the event. 2 The basic reason why the matter is being returned is that, in the course of the decision by the decision maker, there were statements to the effect that the applicant was required to report to the authorities on a weekly basis, which he did following the demonstrations in 1999. The RRT considered that, on the evidence of the applicant, he continued to live in Tehran and reported to the authorities every week up until his departure from Iran, and there were further comments that, on the basis of his own evidence, he was required to report on a weekly basis. This occurs in another part of the decision of the RRT. 3 Having considered the provisions of the transcript, which were obtained since the hearing, it appears that there was evidence from the applicant before the RRT that he was in hiding after the 1999 demonstrations. Accordingly, those statements of the RRT were not accurate. In those circumstances, I consider that there has been an error of law, and the matter should be sent back to the RRT, having regard to these comments, so that the matter can be reconsidered. I think that is the appropriate course to take in this case. 4 I reserve full liberty to apply to the applicant on his being notified of this, and I direct that he be given a translation of these comments. The end consequence, then, is that I make the orders which I foreshadowed at the beginning of this discussion. I will adjourn the Court at this point in time and there will be liberty to restore on two days notice, should that be necessary or appropriate. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. Associate: Dated: 3 September 2001 The Applicant appeared in person. Counsel for the Respondent: A A Jenshel Solicitor for the Respondent: The Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 23 August 2001 Date of Judgment: 23 August 2001