Applicant S1910-2003 v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 574

[2007] HCATrans 574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S439 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT S1910/2003

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 9.05 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   On 13 February 2007, Gummow J ordered that this application for special leave to appeal be reinstated, having earlier been deemed abandoned because of delay on the applicant’s part.  The applicant still requires an order dispensing with the Rules’ requirements as to time.  We prefer to deal first with the substance of the application.

The applicant is a national of India, having arrived in Australia as long ago as December 1994.  He promptly sought a protection visa which was refused by the delegate of the Minister.  He then sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) contending that he had been a member of Jamat‑i‑Islami and had been persecuted and imprisoned on account of his political activities in India.  The Tribunal, noting many inconsistencies in his evidence, affirmed the decision of the delegate.  It found that the applicant had concocted his claims and was never a member of Jamat‑i‑Islami.

The applicant was unrepresented in an application for judicial review before the Federal Magistrates Court (Driver FM).  That court rejected the complaint which was, essentially, the failure of the Tribunal to disclose all of its credibility concerns.  The Federal Magistrate found no jurisdictional error and dismissed the application.

An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia was decided by Bennett J, exercising the appellate powers of that court.  Her Honour noted submissions that two of fifteen inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence, noted by the Tribunal, had not been put to the applicant for his comment.  However, according to her Honour, one of these was put in substance and a failure to put the other had produced no practical injustice.  Accordingly, the appeal to the Full Court was dismissed on the basis that no relevant jurisdictional error had been shown.

In our view, the applicant has not advanced any question of law or argument of jurisdictional error that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal to this Court.  His attempts to tender new evidence in the appeal were misconceived.  There is no apparent error in the reasons of the Federal Court.  Special leave to appeal to this Court is therefore refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, 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 for special leave.

I publish that disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.07 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED