VWDC v MIMA

[2006] HCATrans 635

[2006] HCATrans 635

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M82 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

VWDC

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 9.21 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicants are a woman and her two children.  They are citizens of Sri Lanka, and arrived in Australia on 16 July 1999.  On 26 July 1999, the woman lodged an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), claiming a fear of persecution because of her political affiliations in Pakistan. She claimed this fear of persecution was sufficient to satisfy the criteria for granting a protection visa in s 36(2)(a) of the Act. Her children claimed protection visas as dependants of their mother. On 7 April 2000 a delegate of the first respondent refused the visas.

The Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) accepted that the first applicant was the president of the UNP Women’s Front in the Wattala constituency.  The Tribunal also accepted that the applicant’s political opponents caused damage to her house and car, and that her political affiliations may have had adverse consequences for her family’s business.  Nonetheless, the Tribunal found that the harassment and property damage was short-lived, and did not consider that the applicant was at risk of serious harm if she returned to Sri Lanka.  The Tribunal thus affirmed the delegate’s decision to refuse protection visas for the applicant and her children.

On 23 January 2006, the applicants’ claims were considered in the Federal Magistrates Court. Connolly FM ruled that most of the matters complained of went to the merits of the application and should be left to the Tribunal. The sole legal issue in question concerned s 424A of the Act. This section could arguably be read to compel the Tribunal to give the applicant particulars of information it had used to highlight inconsistencies in her evidence. Connolly FM, however, ruled that the inconsistencies in the first applicant’s evidence either did not rely on “information” within the meaning of s 424A(1), or relied on information that fell into the exceptions in ss 424A(3)(a) and 424(3)(b). The appeal was thus dismissed. The applicants appealed to the Federal Court, where Finkelstein J concluded that there had been no failure to comply with s 424A by the respondents.

The applicants’ case before this Court discloses insufficient grounds to doubt the Federal Court’s conclusion regarding s 424A. There are insufficient prospects of success on any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court to warrant a grant of special leave. 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 9.24 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED