FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NAZF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2004] FCA 340
NAZF & NAZG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 2505 of 2003
SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
24 MARCH 2004
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
N 2505 OF 2003 |
|
BETWEEN: |
NAZF & NAZG APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
SACKVILLE J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
24 MARCH 2004 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. A writ of certiorari issue, quashing the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.
2. A writ of mandamus issue, requiring the Refugee Review Tribunal to redetermine the matter according to law.
3. Each party is to bear their own 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 2505 OF 2003 |
|
BETWEEN: |
NAZF & NAZG APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
SACKVILLE J |
|
DATE: |
24 MARCH 2004 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The applicants seek prerogative relief in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) handed down ago as 17 July 2000. The proceedings in this Court were commenced on 19 December 2003.
2 The applicants are citizens of the Peoples Republic of China (“PRC”). They claimed that they feared persecution in the PRC by reason of their political opinions. In particular, they claimed that they had been black-listed because they had been accused of jeopardizing the return of Macau and Taiwan to the PRC.
3 The parties have submitted consent orders as follows:
“1. A writ of certiorari issue, quashing the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.
2. A writ of mandamus issue, requiring the Refugee Review Tribunal to redetermine the matter according to law.
3. Each party is to bear their own costs.”
4 The solicitors for the Minister have indicated that the Minister’s consent to the remittal of the application is on the basis that the RRT failed to address the substance of the applicants’ claim. In particular, the Minister accepts that the RRT failed to take into account matters relating to their financial circumstances in the PRC. This was a matter of some significance before the RRT, since the RRT rejected their account, in part, because it did not accept that they could live in the PRC for more than two years after having been dismissed from their employment.
5 The Minister accepts that, by reason of the RRT’s failure to address this issue, it could be said to have failed to accord the applicants procedural fairness or, alternatively, constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction.
6 In the light of the Minister’s position, I am satisfied that there has been a jurisdictional error in this case that would justify relief being granted in the terms of the consent orders. Accordingly, I have made orders to that effect.
|
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville . |
Associate:
Dated: 24 March 2004
|
Solicitor for the Applicant: |
City Law Solicitors |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Clayton Utz |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
24 March 2004 |
