SZELM & Anor v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 363

[2006] HCATrans 363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S575 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZELM

First Applicant

SZELN

Second 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

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 2 AUGUST 2006, AT 9.42 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

HAYNE J:   The applicants are husband and wife. Formerly resident in Latvia, they claim to be stateless. The applicants seek special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Madgwick J). By those orders, Madgwick J dismissed the applicants’ appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court, dismissing an application for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Refugee Review Tribunal determined that the discrimination the applicants claimed to have experienced in Latvia did not constitute persecution in the relevant sense, and affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas.

It was noted by Madgwick J that in 2002 the applicants had litigated the same issues in the Federal Court before Wilcox J; but Madgwick J concluded that it was not necessary to determine any question relating to estoppel or abuse of process, because he did not find any error in the approach of the Federal Magistrate, who in turn, did not find any jurisdictional error on the part of the Refugee Review Tribunal.

Because the applicants are unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The applicants’ written submissions in support of the application for special leave do not raise any arguable question of law which would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal to this Court.  We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of Madgwick J.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED