NAOJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant, by notice of motion filed on 21 July 2003, seeks in substance an adjournment of the current hearing. The hearing was set down on the first and only directions hearing in this matter which was held on 15 May 2003. The proceedings themselves were instituted by the applicant on 22 April 2003. Today the applicant has renewed his application for an adjournment. 2 The affidavit filed in support of the application for an adjournment states that the applicant is self-represented and does not have a solicitor to represent him. He goes on to state his belief that his case has enormous merit and that due to his financial hardship he has failed to engage a solicitor to deal with his case. He also says that he has been trying to organise some money to engage a solicitor. 3 The affidavit further says that the applicant wishes to bring some documents from Bangladesh as proof of his persecution. The affidavit asserts that he needs some seven to eight weeks to bring these documents from Bangladesh. The affidavit does not identify what these documents might be. 4 In the course of argument the applicant has said from the Bar Table that he needs more time in order to obtain money to engage a solicitor. He acknowledges that he has had the benefit of legal advice through the Federal Court's pilot scheme. However, taking at face value what the applicant has said from the Bar Table, nothing has emerged to indicate that the position as far as legal representation is concerned is likely to change in the near future. 5 It must be remembered that the applicant has had over three months since the institution of these proceedings to organise legal representation. He has had over two months since the matter was set down for hearing. There is no evidence and nothing has been said from the Bar Table to indicate that the engagement of a solicitor is likely to take place in the near future. Nor has anything been said to indicate that the difficulties associated with finance are likely to be resolved in the near future. It is true that the applicant asserted that there might be some chance of obtaining funds from Bangladesh but this amounted to no more than a hope expressed in the vaguest of terms. 6 I might have more sympathy to an application for an adjournment if the applicant could demonstrate good prospects that he could obtain legal representation within a reasonably short period of time. However, this is not such a case. The applicant has had ample opportunity to organise legal representation if he wished to do so. There is nothing on the material before me that indicates that the position is likely to change in the near future. Accordingly, this does not provide a basis for adjourning the proceedings. 7 The second basis upon which the applicant put his application for adjournment was that he wished to obtain further documentation. The affidavit does not identify what that documentation might be. In the course of argument today the applicant asserted from the Bar Table that there were documents relating to a 1998 court case. Again, however, this was stated in the most general of terms and it remains quite unclear what that documentation might be, beyond the suggestion that it relates in some unspecified way to court proceedings. 8 In any event, the applicant's claim that he had been subject to false prosecutions in about 1998 was before the RRT and there was documentary material that related to that claim. There is nothing to indicate that any material that the applicant now states that he wishes to obtain from Bangladesh would have any material bearing upon this application for judicial review of the RRT's decision. Accordingly I do not regard that as a basis for an adjournment. I therefore refuse the application for an adjournment. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice SACKVILLE.