NATC of 2002 v MIMIA [2004] HCATrans 223 (18 June 2004)

--

NATC of 2002 v MIMIA [2004] HCATrans 223 (18 June 2004)

Last Updated: 29 June 2004

[2004] HCATrans 223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S373 of 2003

B e t w e e n -

NATC OF 2002

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 18 JUNE 2004, AT 11.49 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR T. REILLY: If the Court pleases, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Blake Dawson Waldron).

GUMMOW J: Yes, Mr Reilly. Do you have any current information as to the attendance today of the applicant?

MR REILLY: Your Honour, I am told that there was some communication with the Registry. He was - - -

GUMMOW J: You had better call No 8 outside the Court, officer.

COURT OFFICER: No appearance, your Honours.

GUMMOW J: Thank you. Yes, Mr Reilly, we have a communication from the Deputy Registrar indicating that there was a medical certificate supplied by the applicant which is in insufficient form. It states an unfitness to work, which is not adequate for this particular circumstance. That inadequacy was communicated to the applicant in writing on 16 June by the Deputy Registrar and there has been no response to that. In those circumstances, what should we do?

MR REILLY: Your Honour, assuming there is an application for an adjournment, it should be refused on the same basis as the matter the Court dealt with earlier today, to which this matter appears very similar, I suspect, with the additional difficulty for the applicant, but in this case he did not even attend his Tribunal hearing and was found to have fabricated all his claims.

GUMMOW J: Did not – say that again?

MR REILLY: He did not attend the Tribunal hearing and was found to have fabricated his claims to gain a protection visa.

GUMMOW J: Where do we see that? Where do we see the fabrication?

MR REILLY: At the bottom of page 7 of the Tribunal’s decision:

I am of the firm opinion that he has invented all his claims of harm and threatened harm in order to launch an application for a protection visa.

GUMMOW J: Yes, thank you, Mr Reilly.

We would dismiss the application for an adjournment. The application for special leave has no prospects of success and accordingly, not only is the application for adjournment refused but it follows that the application for special leave itself is refused with costs.

We will adjourn to reconstitute.

AT 11.52 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED