SZDBT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: 1 This is an appeal against a decision of Federal Magistrate Smith dismissing an application to review a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). 2 In my capacity as Acting Chief Justice last week, I made a direction, pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), that the appeal be heard and determined by a single judge. 3 The Tribunal's decision was given on 24 May 2000. The appellant waited until 2004 before filing an application for prerogative relief in relation to that decision. The application that he then filed in the Federal Magistrates Court, was heard and determined on 7 March 2005. 4 This morning the appellant, who appeared on his own behalf, handed me a document called 'Amended Notice of Appeal'. This notice sets out a number of purported grounds of appeal. I asked the appellant about the document. He told me it had been provided to him by a friend. The form of the document is familiar to me. It has been used in many cases before the Court, with some variations to refer to the circumstances of the particular appellant. When I asked the appellant about the document, he said he did not understand it. He was unable to explain to me the claims the document intended to raise. Under those circumstances, I concluded it would be an inappropriate exercise of discretion for me to grant leave to the appellant to file and rely upon this document. 5 I invited the appellant to put before me any submissions which he had, and understood, which went to the question whether the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. I explained the meaning of that term. The appellant told me there was no submission he could put. He said the evidence he gave to the Tribunal was true. He felt the Tribunal should have believed him. I pointed out to the appellant that this raised a matter of fact and was outside the review jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant accepted that situation. In the result, nothing was put which might activate the Court's power to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. 6 The learned magistrate dealt with a number of matters put to him by the appellant. None were matters of real substance. The major submissions put to the magistrate seem to have concerned the facts of the case. In the result, the magistrate indicated he could find no error of law or of fact that would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition. 7 I respectfully agree with that summary of the situation. On my reading of the Tribunal's decision, there is no arguable jurisdictional error. The appeal must be dismissed. 8 I order that the appeal be dismissed with costs.