A Statistical Profile of Australian Courts - MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the A Statistical Profile of Australian Courts. Answer: Facts of the Case: In SZSXT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection the applicant is SZSXT whereas the respondents to the case are the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Judges of the Federal Justice Court of Australia. The applicant cannot read, write or speak in English and depends upon the interpreter in order to communicate with the government. The applicant on April 12 arrived as Christmas Island from Iraq as an asylum seeker and thereafter on July 2012, he applied for protection visa. However his application for such visa was unsuccessful. The applicant in order to seek review of the decision under the Tribunal was represented by Mr Ford from Playfair Visa and Migration Services however such review was also unsuccessful. In May 2013, his friends recommended him to Mr Sarkis in order to resolve the issue. Mr Sarkis misrepresented himself as an expert and ensured that he will help the applicant in getting a permanent visa on signing certain documents. On 17th December 2 013, an application was filed by the applicant that contained both originating and interlocutory applications. Such applications were presented before the Federal Court of Justice in order to seek relief on various matters including the confinement of the Minister from abolishing the applicant from Australia. However the originating application was pending before the Federal Circuit Court which was to seek judicial review of a decision before the Court. The Federal Circuit Court did not extend the time period in order to grant permission to the applicant in seeking judicial review of a previous decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Legal Issues: After proper evaluation of the case study the issues has been observed can be emphasized. The applicant stated that a jurisdictional error was committed by the Judge of Federal Circuit Court by rejecting an order to grant extension of time. The Court failed to provide attention to the jurisdictional error made by the Tribunal by failing to comply with the 2012 UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines on the concern of relocating within Iran. The Federal Circuit Court has considered the immaterial factors and therefore directed the applicant to seek help from the Minister rather than the Court. Mr. Sarkis committed a fraud on the Court while conducting the application of the applicant. Legal principles: In the present case study it can be observed that the Federal Justice Court while evaluating the issues involved in the case made its decision by depending on three different legislations- Section 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and Sections 476 and 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The provisions of Section 20(1A) states that in case of matters where it was determined by the Chief Justice that such matter is of utmost importance then in such cases it is applicable it can be heard by a Full Court following the provisions of section 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976[1]. The originating and interlocutory application presented by the applicant before the Federal Circuit Court has been heard by a Full Court according to the directions given by the Chief Justice under the provisions of Section 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)[2]. In this regard an application for judicial review was presented before the Court under the provisions of Section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). After hearing the appeals of both the parties Justice Cowdroy rejected the interlocutory application and directed to comply with the amended originating application. The applicant filed an application in the Federal Circuit Court which has been declared as an application under Section 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)[3]. Section 476 deals with the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court while making decisions where it has been emphasized that a Federal Circuit Court has no jurisdiction in case of a primary decision and a privative clause decision[4]. However the extension of time is sought under Section 477 and therefore in the present cases the applicant presented an application in order to seek extension of time. The Federal Circuit Court however did not allow extension of time[5]. Importance of Administrative Law: Administrative law governs the decisions made by the executive of the government in accordance to the individuals or corporations acting under the higher authority[6]. In regard to the given case study which deals with the issues of immigration law that has been regarded as a kind of administrative law as it contours the decisions made by a Minister through the delegates or through independent tribunals. The subject matter of administrative law laid emphasis on the judicial review of the decision of administrative bodies. The scope of Administrative law has been rightly applied in SZSXT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection because various procedural errors were observed while making decision regarding the case and the Judge acted in unreasonableness while making the decision in relation to the judicial review made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Bibliography: Cameron, Matthew. "From queue jumpers to absolute scum of the earth: Refugee and organised criminal deviance in Australian asylum policy."Australian Journal of Politics History59.2 (2013): 241-259. Hammond, Emily, and David L. Markell. "Administrative Proxies for Judicial Review: Building Legitimacy from the Inside-Out." (2013). Opeskin, Brian. "State of the Judicature: A Statistical Profile of Australian Courts and Judges."Revista Forumul Judecatorilor(2014): 133. Pickering, Sharon, and Leanne Weber. "Policing transversal borders."The Borders of Punishment. Migration, Citizenship, and Social Exclusion(2013): 93-110. Pietsch, Juliet. "Immigration and refugees: punctuations in the Commonwealth policy agenda."Australian Journal of Public Administration72.2 (2013): 143-155. Pietsch, Juliet. "Immigration and refugees: punctuations in the Commonwealth policy agenda."Australian Journal of Public Administration72.2 (2013): 143-155. Szewczyk, Bart MJ. "Customary International Law and Statutory Interpretation: An Empirical Analysis of Federal Court Decisions."Geo. Wash. L. Rev.82 (2013): 1118. [1] Szewczyk, Bart MJ. "Customary International Law and Statutory Interpretation: An Empirical Analysis of Federal Court Decisions."Geo. Wash. L. Rev.82 (2013): 1118. [2] Opeskin, Brian. "State of the Judicature: A Statistical Profile of Australian Courts and Judges."Revista Forumul Judecatorilor(2014): 133. [3] Pietsch, Juliet. "Immigration and refugees: punctuations in the Commonwealth policy agenda."Australian Journal of Public Administration72.2 (2013): 143-155. [4] Pickering, Sharon, and Leanne Weber. "Policing transversal borders."The Borders of Punishment. Migration, Citizenship, and Social Exclusion(2013): 93-110. [5] Cameron, Matthew. "From queue jumpers to absolute scum of the earth: Refugee and organised criminal deviance in Australian asylum policy."Australian Journal of Politics History59.2 (2013): 241-259. [6] Hammond, Emily, and David L. Markell. "Administrative Proxies for Judicial Review: Building Legitimacy from the Inside-Out." (2013).