MZWMQ & Ors v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 361

[2006] HCATrans 361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M126 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

MZWMQ, MZWMR AND MZWMS

Applicants

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

THE 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 WEDNESDAY, 2 AUGUST 2006, AT 9.39 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicants are husband, wife and child, and are citizens of Sri Lanka. They seek special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Marshall J) exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. By those orders, Marshall J dismissed the applicants’ appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application 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 applicants’ protection visas.

The Tribunal’s decision turned on findings of fact and an adverse assessment of credibility.  Grounds challenging these findings were unsuccessfully agitated before Marshall J, as was a contention that the Refugee Review Tribunal was misled by an incorrect translation of the evidence given by the wife through an interpreter.  Marshall J noted that there was no evidence before the Court which would enable him to make an assessment of errors, if any, in the translation, and whether such errors were so serious as to deny the applicants a fair hearing.

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

The applicants’ written submissions in support of the application for special leave develop no argument in support of the application beyond assertions of fact.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of Marshall J.

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 9.41 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED