SXRB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Ors

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GIVEN EX TEMPORE THE COURT: 1 Last week, the appellant applied for an adjournment of the hearing of this appeal on the grounds, first, that he has no legal representation and wished to acquire some and, secondly, he needed further preparation time. The first respondent has opposed this application. 2 A solicitor retained by the appellant filed a notice of appeal on 20 September 2005. On or about 20 January 2006, the appellant's solicitor gave notice that he ceased to act for the appellant. At the hearing, the appellant appeared by teleconference from Brisbane and reiterated the reasons for his application. 3 For the reasons we have given we would refuse the appellant's adjournment application. 4 The appellant is a citizen of Sudan. When he arrived in Australia in October 2003, he held a Business (Short Stay) visa for the stated purpose of attending a medical conference. He applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 7 November 2003, on the ground that he had a well-founded fear of persecution by Sudanese security forces by reason of imputed political opinion. A delegate of the first respondent refused his application on 12 December 2003. He applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") for review. The RRT subsequently rejected his claims as implausible and affirmed the decision not to grant him a protection visa. The appellant applied to this Court for judicial review. 5 The primary judge dismissed his application. His Honour rejected a contention that the RRT fell into jurisdictional error. The appellant appeals from this judgment. 6 The principal question raised by the appeal is whether s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) has the consequence that the RRT was obliged to provide the appellant with copies of certain documents. We do not consider that it does. 7 Section 424A requires the RRT to give an applicant for review particulars in writing of any information that the RRT considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. It also requires the RRT to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the applicant understands why it is relevant to the review and to invite the applicant to comment on it. The RRT was required to give the relevant particulars in writing before making its decision. 8 In conformity with this obligation, the RRT wrote to the appellant by letter dated 24 August 2004 giving him the particulars of the information that the RRT considered would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. These particulars were: