SZDPF v MIMIA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 7 (31 January 2007)

Last Updated: 5 February 2007

[2007] HCATrans 007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S199 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZDPF

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

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 9.36 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia in July 2002 and was granted entry under a Temporary Business Visa, issued in Brunei on 28 June 2002 and valid until 10 October 2002. On 16 August 2002 he applied for a protection visa on the basis that he was a refugee under the Refugees Convention and Protocol. The applicant claimed to have suffered persecution because of his political beliefs and activities. The Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) confirmed the decision of the delegate to refuse the applicant a visa. The Tribunal rejected that he had been subjected to violence, both personal and familial, on account of his and their political beliefs.

An application for judicial review was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM) in December 2004. That decision was confirmed by Sackville J, in March 2005, exercising the powers of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. From those orders the applicant sought special leave to appeal to this Court. His application was rejected on 5 August 2005 by a Court constituted by McHugh and Heydon JJ (SZDPF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCATrans 545 (5 August 2005)).

On 24 August 2005, the applicant commenced fresh proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court again seeking review of the Tribunal’s decision. This endeavour was unsurprisingly rejected by Raphael FM on the basis that the second application was an abuse of process.

The applicant challenged the Federal Magistrate’s determination in this respect in the Full Court of the Federal Court. On 23 May 2006, that court (Tamberlin, Graham and Collier JJ) dismissed the proceedings. It was undoubtedly correct in doing so. Special leave to appeal must be refused.

It follows that the applicant cannot have a second consideration of his arguments as if the first, adverse, determination did not exist.

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 9.39 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED