Applicant a103 of 2003 v MIMA and Anor

[2007] HCATrans 579

[2007] HCATrans 579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S24 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT A103 OF 2003

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.16 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant, a national of India, arrived in Australia in 2001.  His application for a protection visa was promptly rejected by a delegate of the Minister.  The applicant had claimed a fear of persecution on political grounds having regard to his identity as a Sikh and the situation in Punjab, where he claimed a fear of serious harm of harassment or ill-treatment.  The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") rejected the applicant's claims on the merits of the situation in Punjab disclosed by the evidence.  It was also satisfied that, in the applicant's case, relocation was a viable option.

The applicant sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court.  In that court, in October 2006, Lloyd-Jones FM dismissed the application, noting that an identical claim of persecution had earlier been rejected in proceedings that rose to consideration before this Court.  That claim was Applicant A103 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration [2005] HCATrans 634, in which special leave was refused by McHugh and Heydon JJ in August 2005.

On this basis, the Federal Magistrate dismissed the application as an abuse of the Court's processes.  An appeal was lodged to the Federal Court.  There was no appearance in that court for the applicant, who was not legally represented on the record.  Moore J, exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court, refused leave to appeal from the Federal Magistrate's decision.

The applicant has now, for a second time, applied to this Court.  However, his written case does not deal with the threshold question of the conclusion that his process, having regard to its history, is incompetent and an abuse of the Court's proceedings.  In our view, Moore J was correct in the order that he made.  This second application is an abuse of process.  It must be refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented in this Court, his application has been dealt with in accordance with r 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

I publish that disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.18 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED