SZAUV & Ors v MIMA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 641

[2006] HCATrans 641

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S152 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZAUV

First Applicant

SZAUW

Second Applicant

SZAUX

Third Applicant

SZAUY

Fourth 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 WEDNESDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2006, AT 9.36 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GUMMOW J:   The first applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who claims to fear political persecution on account of his activities as a member of the Awami League.  The second applicant is the first applicant’s wife, and the third and fourth applicants are his children; their claims are dependent on his claim.  The decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse his application for a protection visa was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  Although the Tribunal was prepared to assume that the applicant had been a member of the Awami League, it found that his claims of extortion and torture were exaggerated.  The Tribunal also found that even if the first applicant’s most credible submission were accepted, his fears were localised and it would be open to him to relocate. 

The proceeding from which this application for special leave arises was the applicants’ second application for judicial review in the Federal Magistrates Court.  The applicants’ first application was heard and dismissed by Baumann FM on 10 September 2003, an appeal to the Federal Court (Conti J) and an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court (Hayne and Callinan JJ) were also dismissed.  Therefore, on the motion of the respondents Scarlett FM struck out the second application for judicial review as an abuse of process and a vexatious proceeding.  An application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Heerey J. 

The application for special leave to appeal to this Court is vague and formulaic to the point of being incomprehensible.  It does not address the threshold issue that the proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court were dismissed as an abuse of process.  There are no prospects of success in any appeal to this Court.  Special leave is refused.

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 Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.38 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED