Applicant S1149-2003 v RRT & Anor

[2005] HCATrans 514

[2005] HCATrans 514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S175 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT S1149 OF 2003

Applicant

and

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 8.51 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

McHUGH J:   The applicant is the same person as the applicant in Applicant S453 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  Towards the end of the series of events which concluded the applicant’s challenge to the delegate’s refusal of a protection visa, in about April 2000 the applicant was joined as party to proceedings in this Court, Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal, S89 of 1999, in which Lie was the representative of the applicant.  The applicant then took advantage of leave granted by Gaudron J to file a draft Order Nisi in his own right, thus starting the present proceedings.  Emmett J refused an application for an order nisi.  An application for leave to appeal was dismissed by Jacobson J. 

Emmett J’s reason for dismissing the application was that the unparticularised material filed, which relied on the principles stated in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966; 190 ALR 601, did not demonstrate an arguable case for relief and was not supported by the necessary evidence. Jacobson J held that the applicant had not demonstrated any error in Emmett J’s reasoning.

The applicant’s special leave application does not reveal any error in Jacobson J’s reasoning.  It is therefore not necessary to deal with a contention by the respondent that no appeal lies to this Court from the judgment of a single Federal Court judge.  An appeal would have no prospects of success.  The application must be dismissed.

Under the power conferred by r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed with costs.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.52 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED