W231/01A v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 80 (12 February 2002)

Last Updated: 13 February 2002

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

W231/01A v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 80

MIGRATION - refusal to grant protection visas - Tribunal affirming decision of respondent not to grant visas - applicant in detention - applicant did all that was possible to lodge notice of appeal within time - Australian corrections management failed to lodge notice of appeal given to it - notice of appeal lodged out of time - whether Court has jurisdiction to hear the application - whether statute abrogated fundamental freedom of right of access to the courts - whether that fundamental freedom included right of unimpeded communication with the courts - whether deemed compliance with Act - whether respondent in position of conflict

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 256, 476(1), 478, 478(1)(b)

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 36

Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 (UK) s 2

Finn, Fiduciary Obligations (Law Book Company, 1977) ch 15 and ch 21

Nirmalan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 672 followed

Hong v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1998) 82 FCR 469 referred to

Oguzhan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 781; (2000) 99 FCR 285 referred to

Kucuk v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 535 referred to

Abidin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 842 referred to

Salehi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 995 referred to

Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Incorporated v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1297; (2001) 182 ALR 617 cited

Minister for Lands and Forests v McPherson (1991) 22 NSWLR 687 cited

Raymond v Honey [1982] 1 All ER 756 cited

Chester v Bateson [1920] 1 QB 829 cited

R & W Paul Ltd v Wheat Commission [1936] 2 All ER 1243, [1937] AC 139 cited

Re Boaler [1915] 1 KB 21 cited

Reg v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Anderson [1984] QB 778 cited

Leech v Secretary of State for Scotland [1991] SLT 910 cited

Reg v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech [1994] QB 198 cited

Mabo & Ors v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1 referred to

Wills & Sons v McSherry [1913] 1 KB 20 cited

Keir v Morris (1963) 4 FLR 230 referred to

Bropho v Western Australia [1990] HCA 24; [1990] 171 CLR 1 cited

Potter v Minahan [1908] HCA 63; [1908] 7 CLR 277 cited

Clay v Clay [2001] HCA 9; (2001) 202 CLR 410 cited

Cubillo v Commonwealth [2000] FCA 1084; (2000) 174 ALR 97 cited

Le v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1994) 53 FCR 27 referred to

W231/01A v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

W231 of 2001

RD NICHOLSON J

12 FEBRUARY 2002

PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W231 of 2001

BETWEEN:	W231/01A APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	RD NICHOLSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent's notice of objection to competency be allowed.

2. The application be dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the notice and of the application.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W231 of 2001

BETWEEN:	W231/01A APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	RD NICHOLSON J
DATE:	12 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 The applicant is a citizen of Iran. He arrived in Australia on 28 September 2000. An officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("DIMA") interviewed the applicant on 19 October 2000. The applicant applied to DIMA for a protection visa on 18 October 2000. On 7 March 2001 a delegate of the respondent made a decision refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant.

2 On 12 March 2001 application was made by the applicant to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review of the delegate's decision. Following a hearing on 9 April 2001, at which the applicant gave oral evidence, the Tribunal made a decision on 1 May 2001 affirming the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa. On 12 June 2001 the applicant lodge with the Court an application for review of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

3 On 22 June 2001 the respondent filed a notice of objection to competency. The ground of objection is that the application for review was not lodged with a registry of the Federal Court within 28 days of the applicant being notified of the Tribunal's decision, as required by s 478(1)(b) of the Act.

4 Section 36 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) provides that the reckoning of time is not inclusive of the date of happening of an event from which time is to run. Applying s 36, the last date for the applicant to lodge his application was 30 May 2001.

Evidence

5 The respondent admitted into evidence, firstly, the affidavit of Diane Miller, an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("DIMA") occupying the position of the Business Manager, Curtin Immigration Reception and Processing Centre ("IRPC") from 17 April 2001 to 22 May 2001. Secondly, the affidavit of Sonya Boylan, Assistant Business Manager of DIMA, employed at the IRPC for approximately 14 months prior to November 2001. M/s Boylan was cross-examined on her affidavit.

6 The evidence of M/s Miller was that standard procedure for notifying detainees of adverse decisions of the Tribunal was for the Business Manager to personally hand to the detainee the letter from the Tribunal notifying the applicant of the decision together with the Tribunal's decision and reasons for decision. It was M/s Millers standard practice when advising detainees of adverse tribunal decisions to inform them they had the right to have the decision reviewed by the Federal Court and that any application for review must be lodged with the Court within 28 days. In doing this she always used the services of an on-site interpreter.

7 M/s Miller's evidence was that she handed the Tribunal decision in this matter to the applicant on 2 May 2001. He immediately left the office in a state of distress so that she was not able to advise him of the appeal procedures. Her uncontroverted evidence was that her normal practice was to ask the interpreter to provide the detainee with any further information concerning appeal rights. She is confident that in accordance with this procedure the applicant was advised that he had 28 days in which to lodge an application with the Federal Court. Her evidence was that she was confident he would not have been told he had 28 working days to lodge his application as the 28 day limitation period was well known to DIMA staff.

8 The evidence of M/s Boylan was that there is a standard procedure for applicants to send faxes or make appointments to see DIMA officers. This involved the applicant completing a "Request to see DIMA" form or a "Request to send fax" form and placing it in the DIMA box located in the compound of the detention centre. Her evidence was, the applicant completed a form requesting to see a DIMA officer on 6 May 2001. The exhibited copy of the request form has a note on it by a DIMA officer to the effect that the officer could not assist the applicant with his application to the Federal Court.

9 On 7 May 2001 the applicant received a fax from the Federal Court containing application forms for an application for interview. M/s Boylan's further evidence was that the DIMA box was cleared on Thursday, 10 May 2001 and that a request by the applicant to send a fax to the Federal Court was in the box. M/s Boylan completed a standard fax cover sheet and the fax was submitted to the Australian Corrections Management Trust Office ("the ACM Trust") on 10 May 2001.

10 It was not until 12 June 2001 that M/s Boylan was approached by the applicant. She did not know what had happened to his documents after they were given to the ACM Trust on 10 May 2001 and until he presented them to her on 12 June 2001, on which day she faxed them to the Federal Court.

11 From consideration of this evidence I make the following findings of fact:

(1) The applicant received the Tribunal decision on 2 May 2001. This is common ground.

(2) The applicant's application for review of the Tribunal's decision was lodged or "came into the possession of" a registry of the Federal Court by facsimile from Curtin IRPC on 12 June 2001. This is common ground.

(3) On 6 May 2001 the applicant completed a form to see a DIMA officer.

(4) On 7 May 2001 the applicant received a fax from the Federal Court containing application forms for an application for review.

(5) On 10 May 2001 when the DIMA box was cleared it contained a fax from the applicant to the Federal Court. It is accepted for the respondent that it is open to draw to the inference, which I draw, that the applicant's communication was his application for review.

(6) His fax, together with a standard cover sheet was submitted to the ACM Trust office on 10 May 2001.

(7) What happened to his documentation when in the custody of the ACM Trust office is unexplained although it is apparent it was not lodged with the Federal Court.

Statutory provision

12 The statutory provision in the Act imposing the time limit relevant to consideration of the applicant's present case is s 478. That sections reads:

"478

(1) An application under section 476 or 477 must:

(a) be made in such a manner as is specified in the Rules of Court made under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976; and

(b) be lodged with a Registry of the Federal Court within 28 days of the applicant being notified of the decision.

(2) The Federal Court must not make an order allowing, or which has the effect of allowing, an applicant to lodge an application outside the period specified in paragraph (1)(b)."

13 The Court has comprehensively considered the meaning of the s 478(1). In Nirmalan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 672, Beaumont J, with whom Branson and Emmett JJ agreed said:

"The terms of s 478(1)(b) of the Act are specific. They provide that an application of the present kind must be lodged within 28 days of the applicant being notified of the decision. Moreover, s 478(2) of the Act provides in terms that the Court must not make an order extending time. There is now a considerable line of authority in this Court which establishes that the Court has no jurisdiction to extend time irrespective of the merits of an application for extension."

In Hong v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1998) 82 FCR 469 a Full Court found:

"there is no difficulty with the conclusions that the document has been lodged when it is physically deposited with a court or tribunal or when it has come into the possession of the court or tribunal by some other means such as by post or facsimile transmission.

Respondent's submissions

14 The respondent submits the Court has no power to extend the time for lodging an application under s 476 irrespective of the merits of any application to allow lodgment outside the statutory period. The jurisdiction of the Court is limited by s 478(2) of the Act: see Nirmalan; Oguzhan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 781; (2000) 99 FCR 285 at 291 - 293; Kucuk v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 535 at [16] - [21]; Abidin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 842 at [11] - [12] and [22]; and Salehi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 995 at [50] - [52].

15 It is therefore said the respondent's objection to competency should be upheld and the application dismissed.

16 In considering the respondent's objection to competency it is relevant to point in a little greater detail to the strength of judicial opinion presently existing among single judges (in addition to the Full Court in Nirmalan) on the proper construction and application of s 478. In Oguzhan, Carr J said, at 291:

"...the Parliament has defined the Court's jurisdiction as being limited to applications made within 28 days of notification of the judicially-reviewable decision in question. That s 478(1) creates a jurisdictional bar was recognised in cases such as Al Achrafi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1997) 46 ALD 550 at 553 (Beaumont J) and Duwai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1309 at [21] (Sackville J)"

In Kucuk at par 17, Hely J said:

"The terms of the statute and a line of authority establish that I have no power to grant an extension of time irrespective of the justice of doing so in the circumstances of the particular case."

In Abidin, Heerey J said at par [22]:

"It is clear that s 478 defined the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The prohibition in s 478(2) makes clear that the requirement in s 478(1)(b) of the Act that an application for review be lodged within 28 days stipulates an "essential condition or jurisdictional requirement... [it] does not give rise merely to a defence of non-compliance, which may be waived by a respondent"" Rudolphy v Lightfoot [1999] HCA 61; (1999) 197 CLR 500, at [10]"

In Salehi, Mansfield J said at par [52]:

"It follows that I conclude that the words of s 478(1)(b) are plain, and that I should give effect to the legislative intention that each of these applications is out of time, irrespective of the particular circumstances which I have found in each case. There is no scope for implying some qualification into s 478(1)(b) to accommodate the individual circumstances of any of the applicants."

17 Not only must the applicant's arguments persuade me that the above body of strong single judge opinion was in error, but also that I am not bound to follow the decision of the Full Court in Nirmalan.

Applicant's submissions

Factual foundations

18 The applicant's submissions raise the need for factual findings. These are:

(1) The applicant did all that he could do to comply with s 478 of the Act. That is an inference open to be drawn and I find accordingly.

(2) It is also open to inference and I find that the applicant had no independent access to modes of communication.

(3) Additionally, it is open to the inference, which I draw, that the applicant was totally reliant on the respondent making appropriate arrangements for lodgment of his application for review.

Right of access to the common law

19 The submissions for the applicant start from the proposition that while the applicant is an alien whose status, rights and immunities differ from citizens in a variety of respects the applicant has the benefit of the common law: Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Incorporated v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1297; (2001) 182 ALR 617 at pars 51 and 52 (at first instance).

20 Reliance is then placed on the proposition that:

"...when a statute is silent as to procedures which are to be followed or basic rights are observed, the assumption is made, and enforced by the Courts, that the statutes are intended to operate alongside and in harmony with the common law"

Minister for Lands and Forests v McPherson (1991) 22 NSWLR 687 at 699.

Common law right of access to the Court

21 Reliance is then placed in the applicant's submissions on the principle that the common law recognises a citizen's right to unimpeded access to the courts: Raymond v Honey [1982] 1 All ER 756 at 762; Chester v Bateson [1920] 1 QB 829; R & W Paul Ltd v Wheat Commission [1936] 2 All ER 1243, [1937] AC 139 and in Re Boaler [1915] 1 KB 21 at 36.

22 However, it is accepted on behalf of the applicant that that common law right may be taken away by express enactment. In Re Boaler (supra) it was said "but the language of any such statute should be jealously watched by the Courts, and should not be extended beyond its least onerous meaning unless clear words are used to justify such extension."

Extension of right of access to means of communication

23 Next, the submissions for the applicant contend that it has been recognised that the common law right of access include a prisoner inmate's right of access to a solicitor for the purposes of obtaining advice and assistance with a view to instituting proceedings: Reg v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Anderson [1984] QB 778 at 794. This right of private communication was recognised in Leech v Secretary of State for Scotland [1991] SLT 910. In Reg v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech [1994] QB 198 at 216 it was accepted that it was part of the ratio decidendi of Anderson's case that unimpeded access to a solicitor for the purpose of receiving advice and assistance in connection with the possible institution of civil proceedings in the courts, forms an inseparable part of the prisoners right of access the courts themselves.

24 In the Anderson's case it was held that r 33(3) of the Rules of 1964 giving a right to censor a prisoner's correspondence created a substantial impediment to the exercise of basic rights and was ultra vires so far as it purported to apply to correspondence between prisoners and their legal advisors.

25 For the applicant it is contended that the applicant's right of access to the Court includes the right, by an analogy with that of communications between a prisoner and his solicitor, not to have his correspondence arbitrarily or unlawfully interfered with. This argument is supported by reference to Art 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights providing that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence" and by the statement by Brennan J in Mabo & Ors v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1 to the effect that the common law has upon it the powerful influence of the International Covenant.

Impossibility of performance

26 The applicant's case additionally relies on the decisions in Wills & Sons v McSherry [1913] 1 KB 20 and Keir v Morris (1963) 4 FLR 230. In Wills it was held that notwithstanding want of service of a notice in writing of an appeal as required by s 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857, the court in the circumstances had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. In the course of his reasons for judgment, Lord Alverstone CJ said:

"The statute gives this Court jurisdiction to hear appeals from justices by way of case stated subject to certain conditions. The law applicable to the point is clearly stated in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (5^th ed.) at p. 621: "Enactments which impose duties on conditions are, when there are not conditions precedent to the exercise of a jurisdiction, subject to the maxim that lex non cogit ad impossibilia aut inutilia. They are understood as dispensing with the performance of what is prescribed, when performance is idle or impossible..... In such cases, the provision or condition is dispensed with, when compliance is impossible in the nature of things. It would seem to be sometimes equally so where compliance was, though no impossible in this sense, yet impracticable, without any default on the part of the person on whom the duty was thrown"...Where, however, the act or thing required by the statute is a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of the tribunal, compliance cannot be dispensed with; and if it be impossible, the jurisdiction fails."

In Keir Joske J said at 231:

"There is authority to the effect that failure to serve notice of appeal in exact accordance with statutory provisions may deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal and Dawe v. Norhwood [1951] S.A.S.R. 73 was cited to that effect. Other authorities are Pritchard v. Federation of New South Wales Police Citizens Boys' Clubs (1959)77 W.N. (N.S.W) 729; Foss v. Best [1906] 2 K.B. 105; Ray v Justices of Melbourne (1891) 17 V.I.R. 186; McPherson v. Burke (1909) 26 W.N. (N.S.W.) 150".

At 232 he added:

"The matter may be approached in a somewhat different way and that is if service of notice of appeal is impossible, it is not required - Wills & Sons v. McSherry [1913] 1 K.B. 20, which cites the authorities and which was followed by the Full Court of New South Wales in Mitchell v. Berry (1922) 22 S.R. (N.S.W.) 363."

27 It is submitted having regard to these authorities particularly Wills, that where an applicant had done all that could be done by the applicant to comply with the condition required for lodgement of a notice of an application for review, compliance should not be required in a situation where it would offend the fundamental liberty of access to the courts.

Interpretation of s 478

28 Additionally it is contended that a close reading of s 478 shows that it is not caste in a form so as to exclude the fundamental freedom of right of access to the court including communication from a person in detention to the court system. Parliament would be required to have expressed the matter with more irresistible clearness, it is submitted, for the fundamental freedoms to be abrogated: cf Bropho v Western Australia [1990] HCA 24; [1990] 171 CLR 1; Potter v Minahan [1908] HCA 63; [1908] 7 CLR 277.

Fiduciary obligations

29 Further, it is contended that the respondent is a fiduciary of the applicant with a duty of good faith that requires the respondent not to engage in a conflict of interest: Clay v Clay [2001] HCA 9; (2001) 202 CLR 410. It is said a conflict arises in that the respondent has interposed himself between the Court and the applicant in respect of the applicant's filing of a review application against the respondent: cf Cubillo v Commonwealth [2000] FCA 1084; (2000) 174 ALR 97, PD Finn, Fiduciary Obligations (Law Book Company, 1977) ch 15 and ch 21.

Reasoning

30 My reasoning on these matters is as follows:

(1) I am bound by the decision of the Full Court in Nirmalan and nothing in the above submissions for the applicant are directed to persuading me that I am not so bound.

(2) Parliament has, in s 478(2), used language of irresistible clearness. In particular, Parliament has said that the Federal Court must only not make an order allowing an applicant to lodge an application outside a period specified but also make an order "which has the effect" of so allowing. Even if the applicant can succeed in relation to one or all of his arguments, the Court is enjoined by Parliament from making any order to give effect to that view.

(3) For the same reason, even if there could be deemed compliance, no order could be made to give effect to it.

(4) In relation to the argument directed to fiduciary obligations, it is not the respondent who has been involved in the alleged conflict of interest. If there was an arbitrary interference with the applicant's right of communication to the Court it was that of DIMA not the respondent.

(5) In Keir at 231, Joske J after referring to the various authorities supporting the deprivation of appellate jurisdiction upon failure to serve a notice of appeal, stated that "nevertheless the statute which has this effect frequently contains some form of escape clause enabling the appellate court to enter upon and decide the appeal...". What is missing in the case of s 478 is any discretion in the Court to ameliorate the condition of the application of s 478 in appropriate circumstances. There is no escape clause. The wording of s 478 is in the strongest possible terms and evinces the parliamentary intention to deprive an applicant of a right of appeal save upon the condition of strict compliance with the section. As unjust as that may be in circumstances where DIMA is responsible for the non-compliance, the language chosen by Parliament is determinative.

Effect of statutory provision

31 The Act deals in part of the obligations of the person responsible for immigration detention. Section 256 of the Act provides:

"Where a person is in immigration detention under this Act, the person responsible for his or her immigration detention shall, at the request of the person in immigration detention ... afford to him or her all reasonable facilities ... for taking legal proceedings in relation to his or her immigration detention."

Section 256 was, as s 41, one of the original sections of the Act. Portions of the second reading speech of 1 May 1958 are quoted by Sheppard J in Le v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1994) 53 FCR 27 at 33. It may be open to doubt whether the present proceedings are in relation to the applicant's immigration detention - as the proceedings do not seek to challenge that detention. The applicant was not legally represented, and the point was not argued. I prefer not to decide the point without the benefit argument brings, even though counsel for the Minister very fairly attempted both to set up as well as to knock down arguments that might be put in support of the applicant's case.

32 Assuming that the proceedings can be so characterised, there are two further problems in the applicant's path. First, the evidence is that ACM did provide a facility for transmitting Applications for Review to the Federal Court. The fact that a mistake was made, or an error occurred in the operation of the facility does not of itself lead to a conclusion that there has been a failure to comply with s 256. Second, and more importantly, even assuming a failure on the part of the Minister to comply with s 256, s 478 nonetheless operates in accordance with its terms. Particularly given the history of the legislation, there is no room for an implication that the operation of s 478 is in some way conditional upon compliance with s 256. Nor is s 256 aptly described as a procedure required by the Act to be observed in connection with the making of the Tribunal's decision in terms of s 476(1)(a). Section 256 has nothing to do with the Tribunal. The case cannot otherwise be brought within Part 8 of the Act, and the only jurisdiction which this Court has in relation to the Tribunal's decision is that conferred by Part 8.

Conclusion

33 For these reasons I consider that the notice of objection to competency should be allowed.

I certify that the preceding thirty-three (33) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice RD Nicholson.

Associate:

Dated: 12 February 2002

Pr Bono Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M Rynne
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms L Price
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	14 December 2001
Date of Judgment:	12 February 2002