NAOL V MIMIA [2004] HCATrans 516 (30 November 2004)

--

NAOL V MIMIA [2004] HCATrans 516 (30 November 2004)

Last Updated: 18 January 2005

[2004] HCATrans 516

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S583 of 2003

B e t w e e n -

NAOL

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 2004, AT 3.03 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

NAOL appeared in person.

MR S.B. LLOYD: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent in this matter. (instructed by Sparke Helmore)

KIRBY J: You are the person described in the record as NAOL and you are a national of Bangladesh, I understand, and we have an interpreter present today. Do you need the assistance of the interpreter?

NAOL: Yes.

MOHAMMED SHAH ISLAM, affirmed as interpreter:

KIRBY J: Very well, what do you wish to say. I ask the applicant perhaps to come to the centre. We have read the record, but if the applicant wishes to address the Court, now is his opportunity to do that. Would you explain that to him?

NAOL (through interpreter): No, your Honour, I do not have anything to say.

KIRBY J: Yes, very well. We have read the written submissions so that we understand the case that the applicant brings. I would like you to explain to the applicant, please, that this Court only has authority to correct errors on the part of the courts below. It does not have a larger authority to simply change the record or to deal with the matter on the merits. Mr Lloyd, do you have anything to add to the written submissions for the respondent?

MR LLOYD: I do not, your Honour.

KIRBY J: Yes, thank you.

The applicant, a national of Bangladesh, seeks special leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. That decision affirmed a decision of the Federal Court of Australia that the Refugee Review Tribunal had not erred in refusing the applicant a protection visa.

The applicant’s application to the Tribunal substantially failed on the basis that the Tribunal found that his assertions and claims before it lacked credibility. No errors of law or otherwise have been identified at any of the levels at which the applicant’s claims have been agitated. None have been pointed to here in the written submissions which the applicant filed.

For these reasons, the application for special leave is dismissed. It must be dismissed with costs. The reasons of the Court will be taken out and will be sent to the applicant within the next few days.

AT 3.07 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED