Appeal: citizenship revocation & statelessness

Federal Court (Full Court). Is "unwarrantable delay" a "basis upon which, in particular circumstances, any of the remedies sought by the Appellant under s 39B of the Judiciary Act might, in the exercise of a judicial discretion, be refused, in the same way in which the remedies for which s 75(v) of the Constitution provides might be refused"? May a relevant Minister "be taken to have read [a] departmental submission, especially in circumstances where he approved it, wrote brief notes upon it, and signed it"?

Some of the questions to the Full Court of the Federal Court (FCAFC) were as follows:

Question 1: Is "unwarrantable delay" a "basis upon which, in particular circumstances, any of the remedies sought by the Appellant under s 39B of the Judiciary Act might, in the exercise of a judicial discretion, be refused, in the same way in which the remedies for which s 75(v) of the Constitution provides might be refused"?

Question 2: Can it be said that "the inability to test hearsay evidence may render evidence “unfairly prejudicial” and be a sufficient basis to make an order under s 136 of the [Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)] limiting its use"?

Question 3: May a relevant Minister "be taken to have read [a] departmental submission, especially in circumstances where he approved it, wrote brief notes upon it, and signed it"?

Question 4: Section 34(3) of the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) provided that "the Minister must not decide under subsection (2) to revoke a person's Australian citizenship if ... the Minister is satisfied that the person would, if the Minister were to revoke the person's Australian citizenship, become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country". The Appellant was on notice since on or around 28 May 2007 that the Minister was considering revocation of his citizenship under s 34(2). Through a letter of his solicitors dates 22 August 2007, the Appellant indicated to the Minister that he was "in the process of … obtaining legal advice from the Ukraine in relation to the current status of his Ukrainian nationality", pursuant to s 34(3). In these circumstances, was the Minister "required to defer making a decision on account of the possibility that further advice might be forthcoming from the Appellant’s solicitors"?

The FCAFC answered those questions as follows:

The remainder of this article is only available to Case Law and Platinum subscribers.

Read our Terms & Conditions and upgrade below:

Monthly Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
-
$ 29 /month
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
-
$ 49 / month
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 9 / month
$ 69 / month
Subscribe

Annual Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
Save $ 49 / year
$ 299 / year
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
Save $ 89 / year
$ 499 / year
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 237 / year
$ 699 / year
Subscribe

 

Where GST applies, the above amounts are inclusive of GST.

Content Types

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.

Previous articles 500(6H) interpreted
Next articleInterpreting sections 104, 114, 140 & more