VTAG v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 923

[2005] HCATrans 923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M55 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

VTAG

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON MONDAY 14 NOVEMBER 2005, AT 2.22 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of Tanzania and a Christian who arrived in Australia as a stowaway on 11 January 2003.  He claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of political persecution.  He claimed that as an active member of the Civic United Front he had been beaten and imprisoned, that he had then been forced to go “underground to avoid being caught and abused by authorities” and subsequently had ceased his political activities.  The applicant’s religion was not advanced as a ground of his alleged persecution.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claims to have been persecuted partly on the basis of credibility, and partly on the basis of independent country information suggesting that supporters of the Civic United Front were not mistreated because of their political opinion.  The Tribunal was unable to be satisfied on the material before it that the applicant had a well‑founded fear of persecution should he return to Tanzania.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court.  Weinberg J dismissed the application as demonstrating no basis for judicial review.  Counsel for the applicant had appeared pro bono.  An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed by consent by order of Marshall J.  The applicant then sought to have that order set aside, with the consent of the respondent, as it had been made on the basis of a misunderstanding between the applicant and his then counsel.  The Full Court (Heerey, Finkelstein and Lander JJ) set the order aside but refused the applicant leave to amend his notice of appeal because the proposed ground had no reasonable prospects of success.  The Full Court dismissed the appeal.

We have considered the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Court and the Full Court of the Federal Court.  There would be insufficient prospects of success in any appeal to this Court from the Full Court to warrant a grant of special leave.  Accordingly, special leave to appeal 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 Kirby J and myself.

AT 2.25 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED