NALJ v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 261

[2005] HCATrans 261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S259 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

NALJ

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 1.49 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He arrived in Australia on 11 September 2000 and applied for a protection visa on 25 September 2000.  On 19 April 2001 a delegate for the Minister dismissed his application.  On 28 January 2003, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed that decision.  The Federal Court and the Full Federal Court have heard and dismissed appeals in this matter.

The applicant claims that he was a member of the youth wing of the Bangladesh National Party (“BNP”) and then became an executive member of the Dhaka City party committee.  He claims that false allegations of murder were made against him by the party then in government, the Awami League.  He says that he will be denied a fair trial if he returns to Bangladesh.  It is significant in this case that in the time between the decision of the Minister’s delegate and the later decision of the Tribunal, the BNP won parliamentary elections in Bangladesh and was installed as the national government.  In taking into account all the relevant information, the Tribunal correctly had reference to the changed political situation in Bangladesh.  It concluded that the judicial system in Bangladesh is relatively independent, and that the alleged case against the applicant would proceed on its merits.  This factual conclusion was open to the Tribunal to make and does not disclose any jurisdictional error which would be reviewable by this Court.

The Full Court of the Federal Court rejected the applicant’s contentions that he was denied procedural fairness and that he was denied a fair trial.  Nothing in the reasons of the courts below discloses any error of law.  For that reason alone, the application must be dismissed.  However, the Full Court has also commented on another problem in this application, namely, that the submissions were identical to submissions in other matters heard by that court.  The problem was not the similarity or replication of submissions per se, but rather that, in this application and others, the result is that the submissions have little or no bearing upon the specific facts of the case.  The time has come when the Federal Court should give consideration to calling on those who prepare such applications to pay the costs of the proceedings in that court.

Similarly, the applicant’s summary of argument in this matter is nearly identical to another application for special leave to appeal to this Court.  Applications for special leave to appeal must set out the specific grounds of appeal in the particular case to which they relate.  The failure of the applicant to do so merely reinforces our conclusion that this application must be dismissed with costs.

The application is out of time, and an appeal in this matter would have no prospect of success.  Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal to this Court 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 1.49 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED