SZCNY v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 169 (27 April 2007)

Last Updated: 8 May 2007

[2007] HCATrans 169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S283 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZCNY

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 27 APRIL 2007, AT 9.22 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh and a businessman. He claims to have been an active supporter and general secretary of the youth wing of the Awami League in 1986, and had been an active campaigner for the elections in 1996 and 2001. As a result of this involvement, he claimed his business premises had been looted by BNP activists, that he had been beaten by police with false charges laid against him, and that his wife had been abused.

The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") wrote to the applicant to inform him that the Tribunal had received information from a Bangladeshi businessman claiming to be the applicant's former business partner. According to this information, the applicant had left Bangladesh owing the partner money and criminal charges were pending against him on this account. The applicant responded that these were false charges stemming from a BNP supporter, and were politically motivated. The Tribunal then stated that it gave no weight to these charges "adverse" to the applicant.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be a generally credible witness, but did not accept that there was a sufficient political element to the charges that the applicant was facing. The Tribunal also found no targeted political element in the violence against the applicant, his wife or his business. It concluded that the applicant had no fear of persecution for a Convention-related reason.

In the Federal Magistrates Court, Raphael FM concluded that it was open to the Tribunal to come to a view that the charges against the applicant did not amount to persecution for a Convention-related reason, and dismissed the application. The applicant pressed matters in the Federal Court before Madgwick J, who determined that there had been no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.

The applicant's draft notice of appeal before this Court is formulaic and discloses no questions of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal. There are insufficient prospects of success on any appeal to this Court, and special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.24 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED