SZDCT v MIMA [2007] HCATrans 212 (22 May 2007)

Last Updated: 31 May 2007

[2007] HCATrans 212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S258 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZDCT

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 22 MAY 2007 AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: This is the second time that the applicant has sought special leave to appeal to this Court (see SZDCT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCATrans 123).

On 9 March 2006, Hayne and Crennan JJ dismissed his application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of Gyles J entered in March 2005. His Honour had exercised the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia in dismissing an appeal from orders of Raphael FM of December 2004. Those orders, in turn, had dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review to challenge a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") rejecting his request for review of the refusal by a delegate of the Minister of his application for a protection visa.

Undeterred by the earlier refusal of special leave, the applicant filed a second application, which was dismissed as an abuse of process by Scarlett FM in the Federal Magistrates Court. This was confirmed by Rares J in the Federal Court, exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. His Honour dismissed the application on the basis that, in substance, it sought to relitigate matters already determined in the Federal Magistrates Court, by the Federal Court and by this Court. The proceeding was plainly an abuse of process.

No error has been shown in the conclusions of Rares J or in his Honour's reasons or orders. There is no basis for a grant of special leave to appeal to this Court. Special leave is therefore refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application has been dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules. 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 Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.35 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED