WABR v MIMA [2003] HCATrans 304 (14 August 2003)

--

WABR v MIMA [2003] HCATrans 304 (14 August 2003)

Last Updated: 27 August 2003

[2003] HCATrans 304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P45 of 2002

B e t w e e n -

WABR

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

CALLINAN J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON THURSDAY, 14 AUGUST 2003, AT 2.54 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR G.F. BARRETT, QC: May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Refugee Advocacy Service of South Australia Inc)

MS S.J. MAHARAJ: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

CALLINAN J: Mr Barrett, have you any problem in the other Court?

MR BARRETT: We believe that Ms Musolino might have sorted out any problems in the other Court. We were told that it was perhaps advisable to wait there first because - - -

CALLINAN J: Let me know if there is any difficulty, would you. I doubt whether there will be. Ms Maharaj, you are aware, are you, that this Court has reserved two cases which are very similar to this case factually?

MS MAHARAJ: Yes, your Honour.

CALLINAN J: Were you aware of that, Mr Barrett?

MR BARRETT: Yes, I am, your Honour. In fact I was going to make a submission with that in mind.

CALLINAN J: What was your submission?

MR BARRETT: The submission is, your Honour, that I accept, as the respondent puts against us, that most, if not all, of the arguments that we would put on the application here were at least - - -

CALLINAN J: You might not understand what I had in mind, which was simply that this matter should be adjourned.

MR BARRETT: It should – I was going to - - -

CALLINAN J: Were you going to make that application?

MR BARRETT: I was going to ask for a conditional leave. I was going to ask for - - -

CALLINAN J: The Court does not customarily do that, Mr Barrett.

MR BARRETT: There is, with respect, authority for it, but I accept that it is not the usual course.

CALLINAN J: It is done but very rarely. I think the more satisfactory way to deal with it is by adjournment really.

MR BARRETT: I am quite happy about that.

CALLINAN J: Do you have an attitude to that, Ms Maharaj?

MS MAHARAJ: That is an option that I have discussed with my learned friend, your Honour, and it has crossed our mind. If your Honours are minded to adjourn this matter, then we do not have a strong opposition to it, but the first submission we were going to make to your Honours was that the issues agitated in this matter have been discussed by the High Court in the matter in which the decision is reserved. So we understand that the issues would be resolved by the decision in any event.

CALLINAN J: They might well be but in any event, even if they are not, obviously you people would be much better informed and better able to argue this case, and indeed even this application, with the benefit of the reasons for judgment in that case, no matter what the outcome. I really think the best course is to adjourn.

MS MAHARAJ: Yes.

CALLINAN J: I gather neither of you really objects to that or neither of you really opposes that, is that correct?

MS MAHARAJ: No, your Honour. There is no stronger position to that and there is a lot of force in what your Honours say.

CALLINAN J: Yes, all right. We propose to adjourn the matter to a date to be fixed with a view to the renewal of the application by video link to Canberra on a date to be fixed by the Registrar.

MS MAHARAJ: Yes, your Honour, that is satisfactory.

CALLINAN J: Yes, all right. Thank you. If there are no further matters, would you adjourn the Court to Canberra next Thursday at 3 o’clock.

AT 2.59 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED