Applicants S1647 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellants in this matter have, over a number of years, made strenuous efforts to obtain protection visas. Their various claims have been rejected and their applications refused at every turn. Their claims have been considered by a delegate of the Minister, by the Refugee Review Tribunal, twice by the Federal Magistrates Court, as well as by this Court and the High Court of Australia. 2 In the second of the appellants' proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court, Mowbray FM dismissed their application on the basis of res judicata, Anshun estoppel and abuse of process. His Honour also ordered that the appellants not file any future proceedings in relation to the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal without the leave of the court. 3 The appellant now appeals from this decision. The principal appellant's husband, with her permission, made submissions on her behalf. Those submissions were directed to the merits of the decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 11 June 1998 and, in particular, to the Tribunal's treatment of the principal appellant's claims made on the basis of her alleged membership of a particular social group. Those claims were also made before Mowbray FM, who set them out in paragraph 17 of his decision (Applicants S1647 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FMCA 517), including the claim that the Tribunal did not consider a particular social group now identified by the appellants. 4 In respect of this claim, his Honour commented at [18] - [19]: 'The Minister's counsel referred me to paragraph [34] of the decision of Barnes FM where some of these matters are addressed. Here Barnes FM finds that the Tribunal did give consideration to claims based on membership of a particular social group and to the issue of systematic conduct. The findings made by the Tribunal seem to me to be ones which were open to it in both these respects. The Minister asserts that in effect the applicants are seeking to re-litigate matters on the merits. In my view there is some justice in what the Minister says.' 5 It is clear from his Honour's decision that the claims that have been made on behalf of the appellants today have been considered in earlier proceedings by the various courts to which I have referred. In the circumstances, his Honour was correct to dismiss the application on the basis that he did. 6 Ultimately, there has to be finality to proceedings in the courts. It is understandable that the appellants do not agree with the decision that has been made in their case. However, it is not for this Court to review the Tribunal's decision on the merits, and any issues of legal error arising from the Tribunal's decision have been more than adequately canvassed in previous proceedings. For this reason, the appeal must be dismissed. 7 The Minister seeks costs in the amount of $1,000 in respect of this appeal. It seems to me that this amount is justifiable and I therefore also make this order. It is also appropriate to make the order requested by the Minister to the effect that the appellants not be permitted to file any future proceedings in this matter without the leave of the Court. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Stone.