Re Minister for Immigration; Ex parte Applicant S190 of 2002

This matter concerned an application for constitutional writs of prohibition and mandamus brought by an applicant against an officer of the Commonwealth. The dispute arose from the officer's decision not to refer to the Minister a request to make a further application in Australia for a protection visa, following the failure of an earlier application. The applicant contended that this non-reference was arguably manifestly unreasonable and sought to challenge the decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a sufficiently arguable case for the grant of an order nisi for constitutional relief. This involved determining whether the officer's decision not to refer the request to the Minister was a jurisdictional error, or arguably manifestly unreasonable, thereby attracting the availability of constitutional writs. The court also considered the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the applicant to establish a reasonably arguable case for relief, distinguishing between a review on the merits and a constitutional review.

Kirby J, applying established High Court authority, reiterated that constitutional writs are not available for merits review of administrative decisions or decisions of federal courts, but are limited to jurisdictional errors. The applicant's claim of a jurisdictional error was confined to the assertion that the officer had not properly attended to the matter or that the decision was manifestly unreasonable. While acknowledging the applicant's concern about his name appearing on the internet, which he argued placed him in danger upon return to Mongolia, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a jurisdictional error or a sufficiently arguable case for the grant of the constitutional relief sought.

The application was refused with costs, and counsel's attendance was certified.