SZNNU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor [2010] HCATrans 215 (18 August 2010)

Last Updated: 24 August 2010

[2010] HCATrans 215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S47 of 2010

B e t w e e n -

SZNNU

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for reinstatement

HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON WEDNESDAY, 18 AUGUST 2010, AT 9.37 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

SZNNU appeared in person.

MR R.J. WHITE: If it please the Court, I appear for the first respondent. (instructed by Sparke Helmore Lawyers)

ARAFEEN MOHAMMAD SHAMSUL, affirmed as interpreter.

HIS HONOUR: Could you tell the applicant that I have read all the papers that have been filed and could you ask him if there is anything he wants to add to his written submissions.

SZNNU (through interpreter): I would like to say some words, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Ask him to stand up.

SZNNU (through interpreter): Firstly, I thank your Honour for hearing this matter and also to accept this case. Also, I am really grateful to this Court that I have been given the opportunity to present to this Court and present my case. Your Honour, I have been through all the legal avenues and all the courts below but I did not get fair justice, but as I did apply to this Court and my application was accepted and my case proceeded up to the hearing so I believe that I will get fair justice.

In this case I did not receive a letter from the High Court. As a result of that I failed to submit any document to the Court. I would like to put a submission to this Court, your Honour. I strongly believe, your Honour, that I did not get any justice from the court below. That is why I am seeking fair justice from your Honour. Also I would like to request, your Honour, and it is a humble request, to accept my submission. As I am not a man of law and I do not know the legal issues and things but I do believe that there are some issues with the Tribunal, as a result of that I request your Honour to quash the decision of the RRT and remit this case back to the Tribunal.

I am really suffering a terrible life here in this country, your Honour, because I am a refugee and I do not have that much support and it is really a painful experience to be a refugee. I did receive three letters from this Court - the first letter from the Department of Immigration dated 18 March, the second one is from this.....of 23 March and the very last one from the High Court dated 15 April. I did miss one letter that was posted to me but I did not really receive that. As a result of that I could not submit any document to this Court. I have also filed two other documents to this Court as an affidavit and I have provided all the relevant information and my submission in those documents.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I have read those documents.

SZNNU (through interpreter): I want fair justice from this Court.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. I need not trouble you, Mr White.

The applicant’s attempts to obtain a protection visa have been rejected by an officer of the first respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court of Australia. He applied to this Court for special leave to appeal against the orders of the Federal Court of Australia, but that application was deemed to have been abandoned. He seeks to have that special leave application reinstated.

His complaint is that he only received a letter from the High Court advising him of the deemed abandonment and received no earlier letter informing him of the procedures of the Court. However, there was no duty on the Registry to advise him of how to comply with the Rules, and his failure to comply with those Rules has not been satisfactorily explained.

The Tribunal’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s claim to fear political persecution in Bangladesh were based largely on credit grounds. The applicant has not pointed to any error in the reasoning of the courts below. Accordingly, to reinstate the application would be futile and therefore, the applicant’s summons must be dismissed with costs.

AT 9.44 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED