Alam v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 207

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MOHAMMAD MAHFUZUL ALAM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N1241 of 2000

BEAUMONT ACJ, RYAN AND MADGWICK JJ

2 MARCH 2001

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1241 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMED MAHFUZUL ALAM APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	BEAUMONT ACJ, RYAN AND MADGWICK JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	2 MARCH 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1241 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED MAHFUZUL ALAM

APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	BEAUMONT ACJ, RYAN AND MADGWICK JJ
DATE:	2 MARCH 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

BEAUMONT ACJ:

1 The Court will now give judgment and I ask Madgwick J to give the first judgment.

MADGWICK J:

2 This is an appeal against the judgment of a judge of this Court, whereby his Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The decision of the Tribunal had been unfavourable to the present appellant, who was the applicant before the learned primary judge.

3 In respect of the appeal from his Honour's judgment, it appears that the appellant has not had the benefit of legal representation. He filed no written submissions but did make certain oral submissions through a competent interpreter. The appellant complains of various matters of fact, but neither in terms, nor as a result of the implications of these complaints, does any legal question arise. Because the appellant is unrepresented, I have tried to examine the material to see whether there is any proper ground for legal complaint about the judgment of the primary judge, but I have been unable to find any.

4 In my opinion, the learned primary judge was correct, for the reasons he gave, and the appeal should be dismissed.

BEAUMONT ACJ:

5 I agree.

RYAN J:

6 I also agree.

BEAUMONT ACJ:

7 The order of the Court, therefore, is that the appeal is dismissed.

[Costs discussed]

BEAUMONT ACJ:

8 The Court orders that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated: 7 March 2001

Appellant appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondent:	P Braham

Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore

Date of Hearing:	2 March 2001

Date of Judgment:	2 March 2001

Top