MZWMT v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 691

[2006] HCATrans 691

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M162 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

MZWMT

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

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2006, AT 9.32 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of India.  In February 1997 a delegate of the Minister refused a second application by the applicant for a protection visa on the claimed grounds of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion and political opinion.  The applicant argued a well-founded fear of persecution because of his actual or perceived support, in India, of Sikh causes.

After earlier determinations, the applicant joined the Muin proceedings in this Court.  The applicant contended that the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) had failed to give him an opportunity to comment on country information.  However, when, as a result of the Muin proceedings, the matter was remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court, McInnis FM concluded that the Tribunal had come to its decision without needing to refer to the country information.  He therefore dismissed the application for judicial review.  An application to appeal from this decision to the Federal Court of Australia was rejected by Crennan J in May 2004. 

In April 2005, the applicant once again commenced proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court.  Such proceedings came before Riethmuller FM in April 2005.  The Minister promptly sought summary dismissal.  The applicant sought an adjournment.  The adjournment was refused and the proceedings were dismissed by Reithmuller FM on the basis that they constituted an abuse of process, being an attempt to have the issues, already determined by McInnis FM, redetermined by the same court.

Against this order of dismissal, the applicant again sought to appeal to the Federal Court of Australia.  Sundberg J, exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court, refused the applicant leave to appeal from the orders of Riethmuller FM.  The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.

No questions of law or jurisdiction are evident in the applicant’s application.  No arguable error on the part of Riethmuller FM or of Sundberg J has been shown.  The application for special leave to appeal to this Court must be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application for special leave falls to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application. I publish that disposition signed by Callinan J and myself.

AT 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED