Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Migration cases continued

It is always nice to get a good, chunky comment and I try to post them as much as I can so that people can really see what is happening. This is apart from the fact that there is no harm in drawing upon the considerably greater wisdom of others than my own. Therefore, QM says, in relation to our migration-idea:

''"Migration is not my thing, but appeals and so on can be lodged by the party on his or her own behalf and prepared with the assistance of just about anyone. I suspect that this case was lodged in the name of the party. In this case, the decision indicates that the original appeal was a kind of "class action" which dealt with one issue common to a whole bunch of cases. In such a case, I would imagine that a refugee organisation or legal aid or similar were running the primary case and encouraged any other cases with similar facts to piggy back on their appeal (there would be little duplication of work, as only one common issue was argued). However when the appeal was successful and the appellants' cases were remitted to the Federal Court, they would have been heard separately.

However I agree with your point that the legislation is hopelessly narrow. The quagmire of refugee cases is largely as a result of the fact that the prospects for appeals on the facts are extremely limited, which is why we end up with a stream of people arguing technical legal issues, when their most potent argument is on the facts.''"


Post a Comment

<< Home