FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZNRL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR	[2009] FMCA 1238	

MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – Practice and Procedure – whether applicant should be given leave to give further oral evidence.	

Applicant:	SZNRL	

First Respondent:	Minister for Immigration & citizenship	

Second Respondent:	REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL	

File Number:	SYG 1440 of 2009	

Judgment of:	Emmett FM	

Hearing date:	3 December 2009	

Date of Last Submission:	3 December 2009	

Delivered at:	Sydney	

Delivered on:	3 December 2009	

REPRESENTATION
Applicant appeared on her own behalf		

Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms B. Rayment, Sparke Helmore	

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY	
SYG 1440 of 2009
SZNRL	
Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP	
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL	
Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1.	The applicant seeks leave to give oral evidence before this Court that she had a telephone conversation with the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) prior to the date on which her matter was set down for hearing asking for an extension of time to provide further documents.  
2.	The applicant made that statement to this Court following the completion of the first respondent’s submissions which followed a long and comprehensive exploration with the applicant by this Court of each of the grounds upon which she relied.  The Court spent some time seeking to draw out from the applicant any complaint that she may have in respect of the conduct by the Tribunal of its review of the delegate’s decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa, including the Tribunal’s decision record. 
3.	The applicant attended a directions hearing before me on 4 August 2009 and, on that occasion, the applicant was directed to file and serve by way of affidavit any further evidence upon which she intended to rely by 1 September 2009.  Thereafter the applicant filed an affidavit sworn by her on 31 August 2009 and filed 1 September 2009 annexing a document in the nature of submissions and two other documents, both of which were rejected by this Court following objection by the first respondent.  
4.	The first document is a copy of what is identified as a Royal Fiji Police Statement Form, dated 26 July 2007, and purports to be a complaint made to police by the applicant. The second document purports to be a medical certificate from Dr Lokan, dated 1 August 2009.  The applicant stated in the document, identified as submissions and annexed to the affidavit, that neither of those reports were given to the Tribunal by her. The applicant confirmed that position with the Court this afternoon.
5.	The applicant then filed a further affidavit on 30 November 2009, not filed in accordance with directions of this Court.  That affidavit annexed the same police report and a further document being a psychological report from a Dr Salu Dean, dated 8 September 2009.  The applicant sought to read that affidavit in support of her application to this Court.  The first respondent did not object to the applicant reading that affidavit and did not object to the psychological report attached to that document.  Leave was then granted to the applicant to rely on that affidavit, subject to rejection of the same police report as attached to the applicant’s earlier affidavit. 
6.	In the circumstances, it is clear to this Court that the applicant was capable and aware of providing evidence, by way of affidavit, in support of her application.  
7.	Before I commenced exploring the applicant’s grounds with her, I confirmed with the applicant that she had placed before the Court the totality of the evidence upon which she relied.  The applicant confirmed that was so.  
8.	The first respondent tendered a bundle of relevant documents, identified as the Court Book filed 20 July 2009.  The Court Book contains correspondence between the Tribunal and the applicant in relation to her review, including file notes of several telephone conversations that an officer of the Tribunal had with the applicant.  None of those file notes suggest that the applicant made any request for an extension of time at any stage.  Those exchanges relate to the applicant first seeking to withdraw her review application, then reinstating it and appointing a representative to be her authorised recipient.  There is no evidence before the Court of any request made by the applicant or her representative for any further time.  Neither was there any response by either the applicant or her representative to the Tribunal’s second invitation to come to a hearing and to send the Tribunal any additional information that the applicant wished the Tribunal to consider. 
9.	In the circumstances, and in light of: the opportunities already afforded to the applicant to file and serve evidence in support of her application; the many opportunities given to the applicant at this hearing today to identify to the Court all other matters of complaint about the Tribunal’s conduct; the fact that this complaint was made at the very end of the hearing; and, that there was no evidence before this Court to support such an allegation. The application for leave to give further oral evidence is refused.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Emmett FM

Associate:  S. Kwong

Date:  10 December 2009