S1466 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1093

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S1466 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1093

S1466 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 520 OF 2006

MADGWICK J

2 AUGUST 2006

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 520 OF 2006

BETWEEN: S1466 OF 2003

APPLICANT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER: 2 AUGUST 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $1000. 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 NSD 520 OF 2006

BETWEEN: S1466 OF 2003

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MADGWICK J

DATE: 2 AUGUST 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: 1 This is an application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal. The application concerns a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 13 February 2006. The applicant is only a few days late with his notice of appeal and if it appeared that he had any kind of an arguable case, given that he has furnished an explanation of sorts for the delay, I would accede to his application to extend the time in which he might appeal. 2 However, his intended notice of appeal gives as the grounds of appeal that: '[breaches] of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the decision by the Federal Magistrate …' 3 The particulars of this ground assert that 'the appellant was denied procedural fairness in connection with the making of the decision' of the Federal Magistrates Court; that 'the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment in pursuance of which it was' purportedly made; and that there was no evidence or other material to justify the decision. 4 When asked to indicate how the Federal Magistrate had behaved unfairly, the unrepresented applicant merely submitted that things were bad for him in Bangladesh and that the Federal Magistrate should have interfered with the finding of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') against him. He otherwise adverted to his poverty, his inability to make legal submissions, to afford a solicitor or to pay the costs which had been ordered in the court below. He asked that I remit his case to the Tribunal for rehearing. None of this is suggestive that he has a shred of an argument, or will ever be able to mount one, that the decision sought to be appealed against should be upset. 5 Assuming that the intended grounds of appeal were meant by whoever drafted them (very unlikely to have been the applicant himself) to refer to the decision of the Tribunal, there is nothing in the decision of the Tribunal, or in the decision of the Federal Magistrate (in which questions of possible procedural unfairness by the Tribunal were discussed but discounted) which leads me to think that the applicant has any arguable case at all. 6 His cause appears hopeless and it would be futile to engage the processes of the Court and the respondent's attention further. 7 The application will be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $1000. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.