SZJKU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

SZJKU
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 425
S161/2008

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Emmett J) dismissing the applicant's appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrate (Turner FM) had dismissed the applicant's claim for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) directed to the Refugee Review Tribunal in respect of its decision to affirm the refusal to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal, differently constituted, had twice before conducted reviews of that refusal but each of the Tribunal's earlier decisions had been set aside.
The applicant seeks to argue that the Tribunal denied him procedural fairness because statements made in the course of the Tribunal's proceedings revealed actual or apprehended bias. We see no reason to doubt the conclusion of Emmett J that what was said in the course of the proceedings, even if characterised as "imprudent or intemperate" did not demonstrate actual bias and was not such as "would cause a fair minded lay person properly informed of the nature of the proceeding ... to reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question before it"[1].
[1]SZJKU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 308 at [36].
An appeal to this Court would enjoy insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
6 August 2008 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In SZJKU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the applicant, SZJKU, sought special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia, Emmett J, who had dismissed the applicant's appeal against orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrate, Turner FM, had dismissed the applicant's claim for relief under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) concerning the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal to grant the applicant a protection visa. This case involved the applicant's argument that the Tribunal had denied him procedural fairness due to actual or apprehended bias.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the statements made in the course of the Tribunal's proceedings revealed actual or apprehended bias, which would warrant the Tribunal being seen as biased. The court needed to determine if the statements were such that they would cause a fair-minded lay person, properly informed of the nature of the proceedings, to reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question before it.

The court's reasoning and outcome focused on the conclusion of Emmett J that the statements made during the proceedings, even if described as "imprudent or intemperate," did not demonstrate actual bias. Additionally, the court found that the statements were not such as to cause a fair-minded lay person to reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question before it. Given this reasoning, the appeal to the High Court would not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established