NACA v MIMIA [2004] HCATrans 283 (6 August 2004)

--

NACA v MIMIA [2004] HCATrans 283 (6 August 2004)

Last Updated: 19 August 2004

[2004] HCATrans 283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S429 of 2003

B e t w e e n -

NACA

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 6 AUGUST 2004, AT 2.33 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

NACA appeared in person.

MR R.T. BEECH-JONES: If the Court pleases, I appear on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by Clayton Utz)

SUNDARARAMAYYA TEMMETI, affirmed as interpreter:

GUMMOW J: Now, will you tell the applicant that we have read his written submissions, and we will hear any matters he wishes to state orally, to be translated by you to add to what he has written down for us.

NACA (through interpreter): Thank you.

GUMMOW J: Yes, proceed.

NACA (through interpreter): To the honourable judge, based upon the letter of Father Peter Daniels, the previous case was based upon the letter given by Father Peter Daniels. But in actual fact, I have association with the People’s War Group.

THE INTERPRETER: He would like his case to be considered on the grounds of his association with the People’s War Group, and not purely based on Father Daniels’ letter, which was used by the RRT, the Refugee Review Tribunal. His petition is now that he should be given leave to appeal so that his case can be considered on the grounds of his association with People’s War Group.

GUMMOW J: Now, the decision we must look at is the decision of the Federal Court. My question is whether there was any error in the decision of Justice Hely who was exercising the Federal Court’s power. We could not possibly try the whole proceeding again. Can you explain that - - -

THE INTERPRETER: Since the applicant was absent on one occasion in the Federal Court, he feels that it is proper that he should be given an alternative, allowed an appeal. He is unable to specifically point to any error in the judgment, but his contention is that he was not present because he was absent during one of the hearings.

GUMMOW J: Thank you. Is there anything else you wish to say?

THE INTERPRETER: No, the applicant has nothing to add.

GUMMOW J: Thank you. We do not need to call on you, Mr Beech-Jones.

There are no prospects of success in any appeal from the decision of Justice Hely, who was exercising the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia in this matter. Accordingly, special leave is refused with costs.

The Court will adjourn.

AT 2.41 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED