Muthusamy, Ex parte - Re Min for Immigration

[1999] HCATrans 333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M14 of 1999

In the matter of –

An application for Writs of Prohibition, Certiorari and Mandamus against THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

B.F. KISSANE

Second Respondent

Ex parte –

PUHENTHIRAR MUTHUSAMY

Prosecutor

HAYNE J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON MONDAY, 11 OCTOBER 1999, AT 11.04 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR A.F.L. KROHN:   If the Court pleases, I appear for the prosecutor/applicant in this matter.  (instructed by R. Vadivelu)

MR W.S. MOSLEY:   If your Honour pleases, I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR:   Where are we up to with this one?

MR KROHN:   Your Honour, once again, this is an application for prerogative relief in relation to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  I have had brief discussions with my learned friend.  The view of the prosecutor/applicant is that the matter ought to stay in this Court because one of the grounds, failure to take relevant matters into consideration, is a ground which ought not to be remitted.  Subject to what my learned friend might have to say, I think, might determine the orders your Honour might make.  My instructions are that the matter is ready to be listed for hearing but, if my learned friend takes issue with the appropriateness of remaining in this Court or being remitted, then it might be that the orders that your Honour made in the first 32 cases would be appropriate.  I do not know what my learned friend will ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   Let me hear what Mr Mosley has to say.  What do you say I should do, Mr Mosley?

MR MOSLEY:   I am in your Honour’s hands as to that, to some extent, I think, your Honour, as to what is more appropriate in terms of the way the Court might wish to approach the matter.

HIS HONOUR:   Is there advantage in having this one march in step with the first 32 to this extent, that I would be anxious that I be in a position to choose, if appropriate, a lead case – or a couple of lead cases, if it looks as though there are issues that are emerging which need to be dealt with differentially.  Given that Mr Krohn and the Minister will be here or represented on that day, I just wonder whether there may not be advantage in bringing it back on the 22nd as one of the group from which I can choose lead cases to deal with.  Or am I better simply to give directions to get this matter up and ready for hearing?

MR MOSLEY:   I think in terms of what your Honour has proposed, it is probably more sensible to deal with it in that manner?  We have no problem with proceeding in that fashion.  Until such time as – at least it is not a large amount of time, in terms of the chronology, that might or might not be lost if the matter then is given further directions as to the hearing of the matter. 

It is probably appropriate that it be dealt with in that way, rather than giving specific directions regarding a hearing of the matter now.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Mr Krohn, if I were to make directions of the kind made in the first 32, is that appropriate?

MR KROHN:   Yes, your Honour.  The prosecutor/applicant would have no difficulty with that.  It may have the two advantages, your Honour, that first, as your Honour says, it may widen the pool for an appropriate lead case.  I am not able to tell your Honour at the moment the chances that this case would be the one your Honour would pick.  And perhaps the other is that if the respondent Minister has a view about remittal, there is an opportunity for that to be put.

HIS HONOUR:   Are you instructed by different solicitors in this matter from the solicitors who instruct you in the first 32?

MR KROHN:   I am, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Then it is, I think, important that the solicitors also are following what is happening in the first 32, so that they can keep their clients apprised of what is happening, why it is happening and so on.  I think there is advantage therefor in having the thing march in step with the others.

MR KROHN:   Yes, your Honour.  I will indicate to both solicitors that the Court has an interest in their matter and also other matters.

HIS HONOUR:   There will therefore be orders as follows:

1.  That the prosecutor file and serve summary of argument on or before 12 November 1999 setting out:

(a)grounds upon which any decision the subject of the application is challenged;

(b)remedies sought;

(c)reasons applicable for any enlargement of time to enable particular remedies to be sought; and

(d)whether the matter should be remitted to any, and which, court.

2.  Adjourn the matter for mention on 22 November 1999 at 9.30 am in Melbourne or at such other time and date as may be notified to the parties by the Deputy Registrar.

3.  Costs reserved.

4.  Certify for counsel.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.  I will adjourn

AT 11.09 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED