SZDMO v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 242 (24 May 2007)

Last Updated: 31 May 2007

[2007] HCATrans 242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S354 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZDMO

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 24 MAY 2007 AT 9.27 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J: The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He seeks special leave to appeal against orders made by a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Rares J) made in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. The application for special leave is made out of time.

The applicant seeks to appeal against first, orders made by Rares J on 11 July and 19 September 2006. The first orders dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against orders made by Driver FM. The applicant did not appear in the Federal Court to prosecute his application for leave. The Federal Magistrate had dismissed, as an abuse of process, the applicant's claim for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in respect of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal to affirm a decision that the applicant not be granted a protection visa. The applicant had previously sought the same relief in respect of the same decision but had failed at first instance, on appeal, and in an application for special leave to appeal to this Court. Rares J concluded that the decision of Driver FM was plainly correct and, on this basis, refused leave to appeal.

On 17 July 2006, the applicant gave notice of motion for orders setting aside the orders made on 11 July 2006. Rares J dismissed this application and the applicant seeks special leave to appeal against this order, as well as the orders of 11 July 2006.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application is to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

Neither the decision of Rares J to dismiss the application for leave, nor the decision to dismiss the application to set aside those orders, is attended by doubt.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.29 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED