Federal Court: Was the AAT obliged to call a psychologists for cross-examination? Was the AAT's reason illogical on the basis that, on the one hand, it expressed 'concerns about the reliability of the final conclusions in relation to recidivism presented in the reports of both [psychologists]' and, on the other hand, 'proceeded to accept both those assessments and use them effectively as bookends to a range which is expressed by the AAT as “‘low’ to ‘low to moderate’ risk” that the applicant will re-offend'?
2A In carrying out its functions, the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that:
(a) is accessible; and
(b) is fair, just, economical, informal and quick; and
(c) is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matter; and
(d) promotes public trust and confidence in the decision-making of the Tribunal.
(1) Subject to sections 35, 36 and 36B, the Tribunal shall ensure that every party to a proceeding before the Tribunal is given a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case and, in particular, to inspect any documents to which the Tribunal proposes to have regard in reaching a decision in the proceeding and to make submissions in relation to those documents.
...In making a finding about the Applicant's risk to re-offend, the Tribunal gave no weight to the fact that the 2 earlier decisions by the Department to grant the Applicant a visa 'were probative of the Minister having previously not considered him to pose an unacceptable risk to the Australian community'. Further, the Tribunal reasoned that 'it would appear that there is a good chance that the Applicant would not be granted a Partner (BS 801) permanent visa because he fails to pass the character test'. The Applicant finally "appealed" the AAT's decision to the Federal Court (FCA) and the questions to the FCA were as follows: Question 1: did ss 2A and 39 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) oblige the AAT to call Mr Green for cross-examination? Question 2: was the Tribunal's reason illogical or irrational on the basis that, on the one hand, it expressed 'concerns about the reliability of the final conclusions in relation to recidivism presented in the reports of both Mr Munro-Watson and Mr Green' and, on the other hand, 'proceeded to accept both those assessments and use them effectively as bookends to a range which is expressed by the AAT as “‘low’ to ‘low to moderate’ risk” that the applicant will re-offend'? Question 3: did 'the AAT [fall] into jurisdictional error in not giving weight to the fact that the two earlier decisions to grant him visas were probative of the Minister having previously not considered him to pose an unacceptable risk to the Australian community'? Question 4: was it rationale for the the AAT to conjecture that there was a “good chance” that the Applicant would not be granted a permanent partner visa by reason of having failed the character test? The FCA answered as follows:
The remainder of this article is only available to Case Law and Platinum subscribers.
Read our Terms & Conditions and upgrade below:
Where GST applies, the above amounts are inclusive of GST.
Basic Content includes basic news, some media articles and selected announcements.
Premium Content includes all our content, except for Case Law Content. In other words, it includes Basic Content, plus all our articles on legislative and policy changes, industry updates and the Migration Legislation Tracker.
Case Law Content includes Basic Content, plus case law summaries, analysis and extract, but does not include Premium Content.
Platinum Content includes Basic Content, plus Premium Content, plus Case Law Content. In other words, it includes ALL our content.
If you already have a Case Law or Platinum subscription, click on 'Login' below.