SZJNH v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 125 (21 February 2007)

Last Updated: 17 August 2007

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJNH v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship
[2007] FCA 125

SZJNH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 45 OF 2007

MADGWICK J
21 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 45 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZJNH Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 FEBRUARY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal in the sum of $2000.

3. The solicitor for the first respondent personally telephone the officer in charge of Villawood detention centre, express his Honour’s concern at the appellant’s condition and ask that she receive appropriate medical attention including the services of a psychiatrist and a competent interpreter.

4. The description of the first respondent be amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.





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 45 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	SZJNH Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	21 FEBRUARY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR

1 This is an appeal against a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given by Scarlett FM. His Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) adverse to the appellant.

2 His Honour dealt carefully as best he could with the submissions of the unrepresented appellant and found that they disclosed no jurisdictional error on behalf of the Tribunal, which had essentially disbelieved her claims to have been a Falun Gong adherent in her native China.

3 His Honour tried to ascertain, independently of the appellant’s or the respondent’s submissions, whether any jurisdictional error might be discerned but considered that it could not. For the reasons given by his Honour, I agree with his conclusions.

4 The appellant appeared here today stressed, clearly depressed and unrepresented. She was without any documents and had nothing to say except that she repeated her claim that there were errors as to the Tribunal’s decision which she had put before the Federal Magistrates Court. She also referred more than once to further factual material that she has. She correctly said, however, that she understood that the role of this Court was simply to see whether there had been any error on the part of the Federal Magistrates Court and the factual material would not be germane to this Court’s task. She complained that her solicitor had not put certain material before the Tribunal but there was nothing to indicate that in advising against the tender of such material the solicitor gave other than good advice.

5 Regrettably for the appellant, there is no basis for this Court to intervene in the matter and her appeal will be dismissed with costs assessed at $2000.

6 I will ask, however, that the solicitor for the respondent personally telephone the officer in charge of the Villawood Detention Centre, express my concern at the appellant’s condition and ask that she receive appropriate medical attention urgently. This would involve a psychiatrist with a competent interpreter. The appellant apparently did herself some harm before the Tribunal hearing and she is clearly at a low ebb again today. The first respondent will be re-entitled as the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:
Dated: 21 February 2007

Counsel for the Appellant:	Appellant appeared in person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	21 February 2007
Date of Judgment:	21 February 2007