FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NAHU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCA 1365
NAHU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 958 OF 2003
GYLES J
14 NOVEMBER 2003
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
N 958 OF 2003 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
NAHU APPELLANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
GYLES J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
14 NOVEMBER 2003 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
2. The appellant pay the costs of the respondent.
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 958 OF 2003 |
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
NAHU APPELLANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
GYLES J |
|
DATE: |
14 NOVEMBER 2003 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia delivered on 24 July this year, dismissing an application for review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal to confirm the refusal of the delegate of the Minister to grant a protection visa to the appellant. The notice of appeal simply says:
‘The decision by the Tribunal was not a decision in accordance with law. Because it was infected by jurisdictional errors. Hon. trial Judge did not consider it.’
2 I do not set out in detail the submissions which have been filed in support of the application. They are to be found with the papers. They simply do not enunciate any argument which would give rise to any recognisable ground of appeal. The reference to procedural fairness is quite unspecific, and indeed, impossible to follow. Ground 9 is not a claim of any default by the learned Federal Magistrate concerned.
3 In any event, there does not seem to be any substance in this appeal, even if it were properly framed. I have read both the written submissions for the respondent, and the judgment of the Federal Magistrate to ensure there is no obvious or glaring error in the approach of the learned Magistrate. I could detect none.
4 I informed the appellant at the commencement of the hearing that his submissions and his notice of appeal did not isolate any appropriate ground of appeal, and he was unable to assist further. He is not represented and it is not surprising that he can add nothing to what he has put in writing. This appeal is totally without merit and is symptomatic of many appeals which are consuming vast resources and leading the system into disrepute.
5 The appeal is dismissed and the appellant is to pay the costs of the respondent.
|
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. |
Associate:
Dated: 27 November 2003
|
The Appellant appeared in person |
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
T Reilly |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Sparke Helmore |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
14 November 2003 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
14 November 2003 |
