Federal Court. In exercising his power under s 501BA, are the Tribunal’s reasons for decision always a mandatory consideration? Was it legally unreasonable for the Minister to find that the applicant's risk of recidivism was dependent on whether he would have access to mental health treatment, which in turn depended on whether he would be eligible for NDIS treatment, and yet ignore that a decision under s 501BA would render the applicant a non-permanent resident and thus ineligible for NDIS treatment?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: In exercising his power under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to set aside a Tribunal decision, are the Tribunal’s reasons for decision always a mandatory consideration?
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is 'no', may a failure to consider the Tribunal’s reasons nevertheless constitute an error in some contexts?
Question 3: Was it legally unreasonable for the Minister to find that the applicant's risk of recidivism was dependent on whether he would have access to mental health treatment, which in turn depended on whether he would be eligible for NDIS treatment, and yet ignore that a decision to set aside the Tribunal's decision would render the applicant a non-permanent resident and therefore ineligible for NDIS treatment?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: