SZCKL & Anor v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 696 (8 September 2005)

--

SZCKL & Anor v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 696 (8 September 2005)

Last Updated: 20 September 2005

[2005] HCATrans 696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S254 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZCKL

First Applicant

SZCKM

Second Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2005, AT 9.44 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicants are citizens of India and husband and wife. The applicant husband claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of mistreatment at the hands of the local mafia in his village in the state of Gujarat, who have seized his farming land, harvested his crops and taken his belongings.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas. Neither applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal, despite being invited to do so. The Tribunal found the claims of the applicant husband so vague and so lacking in particulars that it could not be satisfied of their veracity. Moreover, the Tribunal noted, fear of mistreatment by organised crime did not, in the circumstances of this case, rise to the level of fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

The applicants sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. They alleged, without giving particulars, that the Tribunal’s decision was attended by bad faith, that they had been denied natural justice and that the Tribunal had pre-decided the matter. Moreover, the applicants failed to comply with a direction that they provide particulars of their claim in the form of an affidavit. The Court dismissed their application on this basis. An application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was subsequently also dismissed by Bennett J.

We have reviewed the applicants’ written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and Bennett J in the Federal Court. There are no prospects of success in any appeal to this Court. Accordingly, special leave to appeal is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application for special leave. I publish that disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 9.45 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED