Federal Magistrates Court Rules: Discussion & Analysis

The Parties Involved

Discuss about the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

The final verdict by the Federal Magistrates court of Australia on the case between Mr. Yelaswarapu and the Ministry of immigration and Anor has far reaching implications. One will notice that the suit had many considerations that were made due to the nature of the issues to be addressed. First of all, this was a case between a government entity and an individual. Such cases are often complex to handle and it calls for wisdom from above if any judge must give a fair judgment. (Haas 31) Normally, it is anticipated that any government institution cannot lose a case given the intensity of the resources that are channeled into the suit. A ministry in charge of peoples’ movement is critical in any government because it determines many population statistics. Demographic changes in a country determine factors such as GDP and the general production in the economy. (Karl 23)

The physical implications of the outcome of this case would cut across all parties that were involved. The first party is the applicant who may also be referred to as the complainant. Mr. Yelaswarapu carries the day as the winner in the contest. After he was denied justice in his bid to apply for the visa, he finally gets reprieve from the Federal Magistrates court. Indeed, his efforts were not in vain. Filing a suit is always an expensive venture. (Haas 45)The procedures and bureaucracies demanded that he parts with a considerable amount of money which is charged in court. The decision to award him victory implied that he would be compensated for the time and resources he used. Besides that, he would have his visa processed in time. Mr. Yelaswarapu would travel to his desired destination and pursue whatever course he had intended. Initially, the ministry had leveled claims that he did not submit proper details of his address hence wrong communication was done and led to delays. (Haas 62). It may have been true but later on, Mr. Yelaswarapu responded swiftly to submit his address in time before the stipulated deadlines. The attempts by the immigration ministry to castigate him were thwarted by the legal interpretations. As an individual, Yelaswarapu would have made a milestone in terms of his personal profile. Having taken on a government institution and sailed through, he has beaten all odds. It has not been clear whether he sourced the services of any lawyer but all in all, this was a landmark achievement on the individual scale. (Einer 112)

Implications for the Parties

The next party to be examined is the first respondent who is the minister for immigration and citizenship. He has the mandate to provide services to the citizens without regard to social status or any other discriminatory factor. In this scenario, the ministry in which he heads has been faced by a client who has an interest in obtaining a suit. Prior incidences show that the client was at fault in the manner in which he submitted his address. This led to a miscommunication whereby the information was addressed to a different destination. Initially, the ministry blamed the client for submitting inadequate address information leading to his denial of the visa. However, the law acquitted Mr. Yelaswarapu who acted with haste to submit the documents. (Garner 107)At this moment, the minister is caught on the wrong side of the law. The physical implications are that he should face trial or he should be fined so that Mr. Yelaswarapu can be compensated. In extreme situations, such a person can be relieved of his duties. For instance, if the appointing authority gets news regarding the suit, severe action can be taken against that person. The Australian president who is the appointing authority may take a step in hiring a new minister who is much competent in interpretation of the law. This is important especially for the image of the country since the international community is keen to access such cases. If Mr. Yelaswarapu involved the media to communicate his grievances, the Australian government would face a big risk of losing its reputation across the whole world. Consequently, the implications of the ruling are far reaching for the entire immigration ministry not only the minister. Officials in the visa processing department would also face the sack because of the laxity that they have exhibited. (Norman 57)

The last party that is affected by this ruling is the migration review tribunal which is acting as the second respondent. It is evident that the tribunal has a duty to interpret laws to the people and institutions. In this case, it was mandated to make a ruling concerning the validity and the timelines in the visa applications. (Garner 55) However, the tribunal failed to provide the services within its jurisdiction. The main reason in its defense is that it had no power in its jurisdiction to make a ruling concerning Yelaswarapu’s application. The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia found that the tribunal was also at fault to insinuate that it had no jurisdiction. As a respondent, the tribunal had lost the case just like the first respondent. The implications too are severe for this institution. First of all, the credentials of the tribunal officials are to be questioned because they believe they cannot handle the duties mandated to them. (Jordan 18)The federal court which is a higher court would reprimand the tribunal judges so that they can substantiate their claims. More so, the reputation of the tribunal is soiled by this fact because it cannot dissect the law and make sound judgment. The judicial upper hand has a duty to reform this tribunal and in this case, most of the officials would also pack their things to leave office. This implies that a much more credible institution would be set up with the capacity to handle cases of this nature and even those that are more complex. The process of hiring the officials is also bound to change. More rigorous and thorough interviews would be conducted to obtain competent judges and magistrates. Despite making a reshuffle in the tribunals, the exiting officials should be charged in the court of law as well. (Garner 23)

Principles of Statutory Interpretations

Statutes are formed to make the law. The principles of the statutory interpretations have been used in this case. The principles demand that the language of the statutes must be understood as plainly as they appear. In Australia, language is essential in the interpretation of the law. The reason why the law is applied wrongly is because of the ambiguity of some words. (Jordan 34). For instance, some words have more than one meaning and even they may mean a direct contrast of the meanings. In the case between Mr. Yelaswarapu and the immigration ministry, there was a misinterpretation of the statutes and it is the reason that Mr. Yelaswarapu won the case. The principles of language found the ministry at fault because it failed to interpret the deadlines at which the visa application was to be made. Originally, the minister thought the applicant was late in the submission and castigated him over wrong addresses. (Haas 74)

The failure in the interpretation was further rectified by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. The principle of statutory construction was applied as well. It implies that each phrase must be given attention and the effect it deserves as well as each word of it. The details in the above case were ignored and for this reason the applicant was awarded. (Jacob 12) The tribunal could not employ the principle and that is why it claimed to have lacked mandate in solving the case.  Statutory phrases should never be ignored. If words have been used plainly, their meanings should be understood as they are. In the event that ambiguity arises, the principle of statutory construction should be used. This principle seeks to examine the linguistic technicalities that a phrase or word means. Once this is done, the interpretation of the law is simplified. It is always a difficult task since suits come to the courts in different forms. It requires a competent and sharp individual to justify their decisions basing on the statutes. The case between Mr. Yelaswarapu and the minister is one of those technical suits that needed a lot of input to come up with sound judgment. 

Einer, Elhauge. Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation. Harvard University Press, 2008. Print

Garner, Bryan. Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 2009. Print

Haas, Malouf. Federal Attorney-General’s Announcement. Oxford University Press, 2012. print

Jacob, Decker. Federal Magistrates of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. Federal Court of Australia. Toronto: Harcourt, 2012. print

Jacob,Timm. Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 in Common Law. New York: Harcourt, 2010. print

Jordan, McNamara. Judgments of the Federal Magistrates Court in General Federal Law, Cambridge University Press, 2013. Print

Karl, Llewellyn. Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules of Canons about How Statutes are to be Construed. Green Bag, 2012. Print

Norman, Singer. Sutherland Statutory Construction. West Group, 2015. print