Applicant M1037-2003 v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 166

[2006] HCATrans 166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M82 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT M1037/2003

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2006, AT 1.46 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Finkelstein J) exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. By those orders, Finkelstein J dismissed the applicant’s appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for an extension of time to commence proceedings and for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Finkelstein J held that the Magistrate was correct in finding that there was no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision and that the applicant was barred from prosecuting the case by the principles of res judicata, as the issues raised in the proceeding were in substance the same as those litigated in a previous application to the Federal Court.  Finkelstein J also held that the Magistrate was correct to reject constitutional arguments made by the applicant, which were alleged to demonstrate that because the requirement for compulsory voting in federal elections is “illegal”, no federal legislation has been validly enacted since 1924.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The applicant’s written submissions in support of the application for special leave raises various spurious constitutional arguments, but no arguable ground for the grant of special leave.  In particular, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion reached by the Federal Magistrate that the necessary extension of time within which to commence the proceedings should not be granted.

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.

AT 1.48 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED