Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte HB [2001] HCA 34

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIRBY J

RE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR RESPONDENTS

EX PARTE HB PROSECUTOR

Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte HB

[2001] HCA 34

Date of Order: 7 May 2001

Date of Publication of Reasons: 8 June 2001

S63/2001

ORDER

Application dismissed with costs.

Representation:

The prosecutor appeared in person

No appearance for the first respondent

M J Leeming for the second respondent (instructed by Sparke Helmore)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte HB

Immigration - Application for protection visa - Claim to refugee status - Claim rejected by Refugee Review Tribunal - Application to High Court for constitutional writs - Whether order nisi should issue - Unrepresented applicant held in immigration detention - Applicable principles - Mention by Tribunal of humanitarian considerations - Whether jurisdictional error demonstrated - No reasonably arguable case.

High Court Practice - Constitutional writs under s 75(v) of the Constitution - Application for order nisi - Applicable principles - Whether grounds reasonably arguable - Absence of demonstrated jurisdictional error.

Administrative law - Breach of rules of natural justice - Allegation of apprehended or ostensible bias - Whether amounts to jurisdictional error - Whether propounded grounds for order nisi for constitutional writs reasonably arguable.

Legal aid - Unrepresented litigant in immigration detention - Application for order nisi for constitutional writs - Role of a federal court in respect of application.

Constitution, s 75(v).

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 417, 476(2)(a).

High Court Rules O 55 r 17.

1. KIRBY J. This is an application for relief pursuant to s 75(v) of the Constitution. It is brought by Mr B. I have described him in this way at his request. There is no interest in the Australian community in knowing his name. It may be desirable that his name should not be disclosed to authorities in his own country. I shall call him "the applicant". 2. In his application, the applicant names the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") as the first respondent and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") as the second respondent. Nothing turns, in these proceedings, on whether the first respondent is correctly named by its institutional title rather than by reference to the particular officer of the Commonwealth concerned[1]. The Minister has appeared to resist the relief sought. The Tribunal has submitted to the orders of this Court. The Minister is represented by counsel. The applicant is unrepresented and has communicated to the Court through an interpreter of the French language.