Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Australia Transcripts

You are here: 

Applicant S256 of 2004 v MIMIA [ 2005] HCATrans 267  (27 April 2005)

Applicant S256 of 2004 v MIMIA [ 2005] HCATrans 267  (27 April 2005)

Last Updated: 11 May 2005

 [2005] HCATrans 267 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S44 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT S256 OF 2004

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 27 APRIL 2005, AT 1.50 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: The Refugee Review Tribunal rejected the claim of the applicant, a Bangladeshi, for a protection visa on the ground that the applicant’s claims that he had been falsely charged and convicted in absentia, and that the applicant had a political profile that would make him the target of harassment by the Awami League or the BNP, were implausible.

The applicant commenced proceedings in this Court for writs of mandamus, certiorari and injunctions. The proceedings were remitted to the Federal Court of Australia.

On remittal, Moore J dismissed the application with costs on the ground that the principles of Anshun estoppel operated with respect to a decision of Hely J that dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court concerned with the same issues.

Justice Branson of the Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal to appeal from the judgment of Moore J.

The applicant’s special leave application complained of the Tribunal’s procedural error and failure to consider the evidence. The applicant also relied on Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30; (2002) 76 ALJR 966; 190 ALR 601, but did not demonstrate the necessary factual basis. There are no grounds for doubting the correctness of the judgment of the Federal Court.

An appeal would have no prospect of success. The application must be dismissed.

Under the power conferred by rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application. I publish our joint reasons.

AT 1.51 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED