In Plaintiff S3/2013, Justice Gageler dismissed Plaintiff S3’s application against the Minister and the Refugee Tribunal for a writ of prohibition (against the Minister) and writs of certiorari and mandamus (against the Tribunal). Plaintiff S3, a South African national, stated feared persecution in South Africa and Ethiopia on a number of bases and claimed she would suffer significant harm if removed from Australia. A delegate of the Minister refused the application, and the Tribunal affirmed that decision largely due to adverse findings on the question of the plaintiff’s credibility. Before the Federal Magistrates Court and later the Federal Court of Australia, Plaintiff S3 contended that she had been denied procedural fairness, specifically by failing to take the best interests of her child as the primary consideration in its decision. Both federal courts dismissed her application. Plaintiff S3 sought to invoke the original jurisdiction of the High Court. Justice Gageler held that because the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal Magistrates Court by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to review Refugee Review Tribunal decisions was relevantly co-extensive with s 75(v) of the Constitution, such a grant would effectively re-litigate claims that were already heard, or should have been raised in the proceedings before the Federal Magistrates Court. Justice Gageler held that the application was an abuse of process and dismissed it with costs.
|High Court Judgment|| HCA 22||26 April 2013|
|High Court Documents||None|
|Summons|| HCATrans 89||26 April 2013|