Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte "A"

This matter concerned an application to the High Court of Australia for constitutional writs and other relief by a Burmese national, identified as "A", who sought a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in his home country due to his participation in political demonstrations and subsequent alleged torture and imprisonment. His application had previously been considered by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Refugee Review Tribunal, and the Federal Court, all of whom had made decisions adverse to him.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether an arguable breach of natural justice by the Minister's delegate was rendered irrelevant by a subsequent merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The court was also required to consider whether the Tribunal had breached procedural requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by failing to refer to an allegation of torture, and whether natural justice was breached by the non-disclosure of country information to the applicant. Further issues involved the Tribunal's treatment of the applicant's protest activities in Australia post-arrival, and whether there was a reasonably arguable case for the grant of an order nisi. Additionally, the court considered whether the applicant was out of time for constitutional writs in the High Court's original jurisdiction, and if the delay in commencing High Court proceedings pending the conclusion of earlier proceedings was explained and reasonable.

Kirby J reasoned that while the applicant's complaints about the delegate's conduct, including alleged bias and prejudice during the interview, were noted, they did not give rise to a reasonable argument for relief. This was primarily because the delegate's decision had been superseded by the Refugee Review Tribunal's rehearing and fresh determination. The Tribunal's decision, which was the subject of the current application, was not demonstrably influenced by any unfairness in the delegate's process. Furthermore, Kirby J found that the applicant's delay in commencing High Court proceedings was explained and reasonable, and that it was arguable that any time default would be excused by the Full Court.

The application for an order nisi was refused. The applicant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of and incidental to the application.