WAJP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

the Tribunal's findings and reasons 6 The Tribunal made some fairly strong credibility findings against the appellant. It did not accept that Pulle had any connection with the UNP. It gave its reasons for that conclusion. Nor did it accept that the appellant had participated in any political activities other than to attend meetings or election rallies. The Tribunal also did not accept that the appellant organised meetings or canvassed for support or directly helped with political campaigns in any other way. Again it gave its reasons for reaching that conclusion. 7 The Tribunal did not accept that the appellant had been threatened by PA supporters. It said that his evidence during the interview with the respondent's delegate was extremely confused on that point. 8 The Tribunal reviewed independent country information about Sri Lanka. It stated that it did not accept that UNP members or supporters or even campaign workers faced a real chance of persecution in Sri Lanka within the meaning of the Convention. It gave its reasons. 9 Finally, the Tribunal did not accept that the appellant attended the rally in July 2001. It noted that his description of the colours carried or worn by those at the rally was contradicted by country information. The country information was to the effect that the organisers of the rally had decided that participants would dress in black and white rather than the traditional colours of the various political parties. The Tribunal said that even if the appellant had attended the rally, it would not accept that he had been threatened. This was because country information did not support the claim that there was any retribution after the July 2001 rally. 10 The Tribunal gave no weight to the letter from Mr Perera. The Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka for reasons of his political opinion. Accordingly it was not satisfied that the appellant was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations.

the decision at first instance 11 The appellant was not represented in the proceedings before the Federal Magistrates Court. His grounds of review, in summary, were based on the following alleged errors on the Tribunal's part: · failure to apply the correct test and principles of relevant law in arriving at its decision; · falling into error in taking into consideration irrelevant matters [and in failing to take into account matters] that were relevant to reaching its decision and therefore committing jurisdictional error; · error of law involving an incorrect interpretation of the term "well-founded fear"; · wrongly understanding most of the appellant's claims; · reasoning for the rejection of the appellant's material claims was unreasonable irrational and illogical; · non-compliance with "statutory rules"; and · denial of procedural fairness. 12 His Honour correctly observed that, under the principles explained in Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2, he had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the privative clause provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") to review the Tribunal's decision for jurisdictional error and, in particular, error arising by reason of a denial of procedural fairness (as claimed by the appellant). 13 His Honour said that having read the Tribunal's decision carefully, he was unable to identify any basis upon which it could be interfered with. He gave his opinion that it was apparent from an examination of the Tribunal's decision that it gave careful consideration to the appellant's assertions and concerns. There was no apparent breach of procedural fairness which could amount to jurisdictional error. 14 The learned Federal Magistrate dealt briefly with the various grounds relied upon by the appellant and held that they had not been sustained. In particular, the Tribunal had not incorrectly interpreted the term "well-founded fear". 15 His Honour then applied the Hickman principles [R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598] noting that the Tribunal acted in good faith, its decision was reasonably capable of reference to the power given to it, its decision related to the subject matter of the legislation and there could be no suggestion that any relevant constitutional limits had been exceeded. His Honour said that there could be no suggestion of bias (whether actual or apprehended).

the appeal and my reasoning 16 The appellant's grounds of appeal were essentially the same as the grounds of review at first instance. There was some difference in the wording of those grounds. There was also an additional ground, to the effect that the Magistrate did not consider the errors which had been made by the Tribunal. 17 The appellant was unrepresented at the appeal. He made short oral submissions to the Court to the effect that he had explained his problems, several times, both to officers of the respondent's Department and to the Tribunal. He asked how can he prove his case, was he to bring the person who was going to kill him to give evidence or to tender a letter from him? The appellant referred to the fact that he had been in a camp for two years and two months, a camp where he said people go mad. He said that if he was returned to his country he would be killed. He made other like submissions, none of which, in my view, have any bearing on this appeal. 18 I have reviewed the Tribunal's reasons and those of the Federal Magistrate. 19 In my view, his Honour was correct in finding no jurisdictional error or error of law on the Tribunal's part which would prevent its decision from being made under the Act. Nothing in the materials before the Court indicates that the Tribunal fell into any reviewable error. 20 Accordingly the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding twenty (20) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of Justice Carr.

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing: 9 October, 28 November 2003