SZGPZ & Ors v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 12 (31 January 2007)

Last Updated: 5 February 2007

[2007] HCATrans 012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S218 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZGPZ

First Applicant

SZGQA

Second Applicant

SZGQB

Third Applicant

SZGQC

Fourth Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL (CONSTITUTED BY MS R. MATHLIN MEMBER)

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 31 JANUARY 2007, AT 9.49 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

KIRBY J: The applicants are nationals of Fiji of Indian ethnicity. They arrived in Australia in February 1996. They applied for a protection visa in January 1997. Their application was refused by a delegate of the Minister in March 1997.

The applicant husband claimed that they were entitled to protection as refugees in accordance with the Refugees Convention and Protocol. The claims of his wife and their two children were derivative. He complained of harassment by threats and attacks on their business and property by indigenous Fijians because of their race. A belated attempt to raise the political opinion of the applicant husband was rejected by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) to which an application for review of the delegate’s decision was taken. Whilst accepting that incidents of ill-treatment following the 1987 coup in Fiji were distressing, the Tribunal concluded that they fell short of systematic conduct, and of the gravity necessary to support a suggested fear of persecution were the applicants to return to Fiji.

On 1 July 2005, the applicants applied to the Federal Magistrates Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. Federal Magistrate Emmett rejected the claim for relief, in part, for discretionary reasons and, in part, because the applicants had failed to identify any ground of jurisdictional error that had reasonable prospects of success.

An appeal was heard by the Federal Court of Australia (Collier J), exercising the applicable powers of the Full Court of the Federal Court. The Court was unable to discern any error on the part of the Federal Magistrate and, after consideration of the applicant’s written case in this Court, nor can we whether in respect of the meaning and application of s 424A of the Act or otherwise.

Within the evidentiary material placed before the Tribunal at the time of its decision in December 1997 its conclusion was clearly open to it and no error of law or jurisdiction has been demonstrated to warrant the intervention of this Court.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application falls to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition signed by Callinan J and myself.

AT 9.52 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED