SZHAW v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 177

[2006] HCATrans 177

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S561 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZHAW

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 TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2006, AT 2.06 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Gyles J). By those orders, Gyles J dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to 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 handed down in February 2002 and affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.

After the initial decision of the Tribunal the applicant sought judicial review in the Federal Court.  This application was dismissed by Emmett J on 27 May 2002.  The applicant then sought constitutional writs in this Court and the proceedings were remitted to the Federal Court on 7 February 2003.  On 18 September 2003, these proceedings were dismissed by Lander J following a failure to take steps in accordance with directions.  On 30 August 2005, the applicant commenced the proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court which give rise to the present application.  Scarlett FM found that the doctrine of res judicata applied and that the proceedings were an abuse of court.  The applicant filed notice of appeal to the Federal Court.  The orders which it was sought to challenge were held to be interlocutory not final orders.  The notice of appeal was treated as an application for leave to appeal.  In refusing leave, Gyles J found that the applicant had not pointed to any bona fide ground of appeal and that the application was an abuse of process of the Court.

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

The applicant’s draft notice of appeal states that Gyles J erred in failing to take into account that the applicant had a well‑founded fear of persecution and by not finding an error of law.  We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions of Gyles 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 2.09 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED