A controversial Federal Circuit Court judge has dismissed close to 99 per cent of the protection visa cases that have come before him, new figures reveal.

Key points: 91 of Judge Street's decisions in refugee matters have been overturned by the Federal Court

91 of Judge Street's decisions in refugee matters have been overturned by the Federal Court A Kenyan asylum seeker says he was not given written reasons for his judgement until the period he could appeal had elapsed

A Kenyan asylum seeker says he was not given written reasons for his judgement until the period he could appeal had elapsed Professor of law says complaints process is "no longer sufficient"

Between his appointment to the bench in January 2015 and March 2019, Judge Alexander "Sandy" Street presided over 844 applications for judicial review of migration decisions in asylum seekers' cases. He dismissed 830 of them.

Background Briefing was granted exclusive access to preliminary results from Macquarie University's statistical database research on Federal Circuit Court judges.

According to the results, asylum seekers have a 10 per cent chance of winning when they seek a judicial review of their case at the Federal Circuit Court. When refugee cases are heard before Judge Street, statistically the likelihood for success is reduced to just over 1 per cent.

More research is needed, according to Dr Daniel Ghezelbash, who led the project at Macquarie University's Social Justice Clinic, to find out the reason for this variation in Judge Street's results.

"We have found variation among the success rates across different judges, but we haven't taken that next step in terms of drilling down in terms of what the explanations are for those discrepancies."

The researchers from Macquarie University have found asylum seekers in Judge Street's courtroom have a 1 per cent chance of success. ( ABC News: Scott Mitchell )

It's a controversial study, and Dr Ghezelbash warns the data should not be used to unfairly undermine the credibility of judges.

"We should be really upfront from the beginning that the differences in judicial decision-making patterns don't necessarily mean there's anything nefarious going on," he said.

Legal royalty

Judge Street, who was appointed to the bench in 2015, hails from a distinguished family of judges and lawyers. His father and his grandfather, Sir Laurence Street and Sir Kenneth Street, were both Chief Justices of NSW.

An apprehended bias application was submitted to the Federal Court in his first year at the bench, based on the judge's number of dismissals in asylum seeker cases.

The application failed. The Federal Court determined each case had to be argued on its individual merits, and statistics couldn't determine issues of bias.

An investigation by Background Briefing has revealed since his appointment, 91 of Judge Street's decisions in refugee matters have been overturned by the Federal Court.

In 27 refugee and other cases, his rulings were overturned on the grounds there had been a denial of procedural fairness, or for his treatment of litigants.

In a statement to Background Briefing, a Federal Circuit Court spokeswoman confirmed Judge Street was receiving mentoring.

"While the Court is not at liberty to discuss individual cases, Chief Judge Alstergren acknowledges that many of Judge Street's decisions have been overturned on appeal and in response to this, Judge Street is receiving mentoring to assist and support him to fulfil his duties."

An apprehended bias application was submitted to the Federal Court in Judge Street's first year at the bench. ( Supplied )

The statement said Judge Street was "extraordinarily hard-working" and was regularly sent to locations across the country to assist with the demanding workload.

'You have 5 minutes to pack your stuff': Border Force

Joe, whose name has been changed to protect his identity, came to Australia from Kenya as a student in 2014.

A couple of years later he declared he was seeking asylum and applied for refugee status.

When his applications failed, he sought judicial review of the decision and found himself before Judge Street in June this year.

The role of the Federal Circuit Court (FCC) isn't to grant protection visas. Instead, the court deals with potential legal errors in the process and will only hear evidence about this, not evidence about why an applicant believes they deserve asylum.

If the case is successful, it is sent back to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where the facts of the case can be presented again.

Joe, who was in court without legal representation, said he told Judge Street he faced a serious risk to his life if he was deported to Kenya.

"I thought I was going to argue my case according to the facts," he said.

"I was claiming for protection because I was fearing from my home country, because I was fearing persecution.

"But the judge, he didn't even look into that," he said. "I'm not conversed with the law."

In Joe's case, Judge Street dismissed his application in an oral judgement delivered on the spot.

Joe was ordered to pay the Minister for Home Affairs' court costs of $5,000.

"I explained to the judge, 'look, [I] don't have any money, I'm in detention, I have no money."

Joe panicked and got in touch with lawyer Alison Battison from the charitable law firm Human Rights for All. Ms Battison asked Joe for a copy of Judge Street's judgement, to understand why he was rejected and determine if there are reasonable grounds for appeal.

Joe is currently in Yongah Hill detention centre. ( ABC News: Andrew O'Connor )

Applicants in migration cases to the Federal Circuit Court have a 21-day deadline to lodge an appeal to the Federal Court.

Judge Street did not provide a written version of his judgement until after Joe's appeal period expired.

As a result, Joe did not lodge his appeal on time, and he said he was later threatened with immediate deportation by Border Force officers.

"They told me, 'you have 5 minutes to pack your stuff 'cause you're moving [...] this is the order from the Border Force'."

Joe filed a last-minute application for extension of time. He was moved to Yongah Hill detention centre, where he is today. His appeal is yet to be heard.

Lawyers speak out

The pressures judges face to get through an increasingly heavy workload of cases have reached an "unsustainable" level, according to the latest Federal Circuit Court annual report.

It's important to ensure procedural fairness is not affected by a heavy workload, according to John Young, who has successfully appealed a number of dismissals by Judge Street.

"The judicial function is above all to provide certainty of fairness, to make sure that the law is being applied," he said.

"If a court simply says in terms of getting through a workload, that it won't give people adjournments, it won't allow people to have interpreters or it'll challenge people about interpreters, then it's inconsistent with its function."

He said procedural fairness was particularly important in cases involving asylum seekers.

"This above all is an area where people do need to be assured of a proper hearing. If their claims are valid, in many cases their lives are at stake," he said.

In one case involving a Nepalese family, Judge Street summarily dismissed their case without allowing them extra time to prepare further for their case. He also questioned their need to have an interpreter in court.

The Federal Court ruled statistics could not determine bias from judges. ( Graeme Powell: ABC )

Summary dismissals in refugee cases have been heavily criticised a number of times by Federal Court judges, including in the case of the Nepalese family.

Justice Alan Robertson overturned Judge Street's decision in the case.

"In my opinion, this is a case where the judge acted upon a wrong principle," he wrote in his judgement. "He allowed an understandable desire for speed and efficiency to trump the appellants' right to procedural fairness."

In one of the most recent appeals, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court said what happened in the hearing before Judge Street was "deeply troubling".

The full bench was particularly critical of Judge Street's instructions in one case. During the hearing, Judge Street told the interpreter of an Iranian refugee applicant not to interpret the reasons for his judgment to dismiss the asylum seeker's application.

Who judges the judges?

The system for overseeing judges at the federal level needs to change, according to UNSW legal academic Professor Gabrielle Appleby.

The way we are dealing with complaints against judges is no longer sufficient, according to Professor Gabrielle Appleby ( ABC News: Scott Mitchell )

"Complaints can be made to the head of jurisdiction, which would be the chief judge or the chief justice. And from there, once a complaint is made, the entire system is opaque. There is no transparency about what happens then," she said. "And there are no disciplinary powers attached."

She said there was an urgent need for the creation of a Federal Judicial Commission to provide a more transparent and independent mechanism for complaints against judges to be fleshed out.

"The concern around the conduct of Judge Street reveals that the traditional mode of dealing with complaints is no longer sufficient. If it ever was."

Judge Sandy Street and the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court, William Alstergren, were not able to provide an interview or a comment for this story.