NAAX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 313

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAAX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 313 NAAX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 1388 of 2002 WILCOX J 24 MARCH 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1388 of 2002

BETWEEN: NAAX

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER: 24 MARCH 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent, Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs. 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 1388 of 2002

BETWEEN: NAAX

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE: 24 MARCH 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: 1 This is an appeal against a decision of Federal Magistrate Driver dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") in connection with an application for a bridging visa. Pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Chief Justice directed that the appeal be heard by a single judge. Consequently, I am exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Court in hearing this case. 2 The appellant appeared today before me in person, assisted by an interpreter. She handed to me a document entitled "Submissions by the Appellant", which set out what were said to be eight reasons for challenging the decision of the Magistrate. The Magistrate is called "The Judge" in those reasons. It appears this document was provided to the appellant by Mr George Fonua, who has advised many Tongan nationals in regard to migration matters. Unfortunately, Mr Fonua has no real understanding of the relevant law. This has caused many people to put submissions before the Court that have no substance whatsoever. That is what has occurred in the present case. 3 The first of the eight reasons is expressed in these terms: "That the Judge erred in law and [sic] findings [sic] that the application involved s 78B Judiciary Act 1903 [sic]." 4 In fact, the Magistrate expressed no view about s 78B of the Judiciary Act. He merely noted that the appellant had issued a notice under that section purporting to raise a constitutional issue. There is no way in which this could be a basis for challenging the decision of the Magistrate or of the Tribunal. 5 The second reason set out in the document is in these terms: "That the Judge erred in law [sic] that the decision by the delegate and affirmed by the MRT (Tribunal) was done in bad faith." The Magistrate dealt with an argument to this effect. In par 9 of his reasons for decision, the Magistrate said: