Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Perchine v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1254
ANDREI PERCHINE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 271 of 2001 WHITLAM, MADGWICK & DOWSETT JJ 29 AUGUST 2001 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 271 of 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: ANDREI PERCHINE
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES: WHITLAM, MADGWICK & DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 29 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 271 of 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: ANDREI PERCHINE
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES: WHITLAM, MADGWICK & DOWSETT JJ
DATE: 29 AUGUST 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WHITLAM J
1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Mathews J dismissing with costs an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 26 September 2000. The appellant is a Russian national who was unrepresented at the hearing before the primary judge and has also conducted his own appeal today. He utilized the services of an interpreter of the Russian language. 2 The grounds of appeal under s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) mirror the grounds of review in the original application. The appellant has the misfortune of being a layperson in a difficult area of law. He has spoken courteously and carefully and with obvious sincerity. However, he has been unable to articulate and expose any error in the primary judge's approach or any error of law on the part of the Tribunal. Mathews J remarked that, in view of the appellant being unrepresented before her, she had critically examined the Tribunal's decision in order to discern whether there was any error of law. 3 It is apparent from his address today that the appellant does not understand the limited nature of judicial review in the present case. The background to the proceeding and the grounds of challenge are set out and developed in the primary judge's reasons, with which I respectfully agree. Accordingly, the order I propose is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
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