SZAMP & Anor v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 287

[2007] HCATrans 287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S375 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZAMP

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 14 JUNE 2007, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicants (husband, wife and child) are citizens of Bangladesh.  A decision by a delegate of the first respondent refusing a protection visa was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

The Federal Court of Australia (Gyles J) refused judicial review.  An application to the Full Court was dismissed on 11 October 2002.  The applicants then issued a writ of summons in this Court, which was discontinued.

The applicants then sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court, but discontinued it. 

An application by the applicants to this Court for constitutional writs was remitted to the Federal Court and refused.  That court ordered that no further application for review of the Tribunal's decision be accepted for filing without the leave of the court. 

The applicants then filed an application for special leave to appeal from the Full Federal Court's decision of 11 October 2002.  It was deemed to have been abandoned under the High Court Rules.

The applicants then applied, without leave, to the Federal Magistrates Court, for review of the Tribunal's decision.  Baumann FM dismissed it as an abuse of process.  Spender J dismissed a late application for leave to appeal.  An application for special leave to appeal to this Court was deemed abandoned.  A further application for special leave was dismissed by Gummow and Kirby JJ, who noted that Spender J had been correct to describe the Federal Magistrates Court proceedings as a significant and obvious abuse of process. 

The applicants then applied to the Federal Magistrates Court for judicial review of the delegate's decision (not the Tribunal's).  Emmett FM dismissed it as an abuse of process.  The Federal Court of Australia (Moore J) refused leave to appeal.

The applicants' proceedings have for many years been abuses of process.  We do not understand why the applicants are still in Australia.

The present application must be dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.33 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED