Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that "s 501G(1) when read with reg 5.02, does not state that the document must be given by a method prescribed for the purpose of giving documents to a person in immigration detention, and the Minister may, by operation of s 494A(1), give the document to a person by any method that he or she considers appropriate"?
Some of the questions to the Full Court of the Federal Court (FCAFC) were as follows:
Question 1: Should the requirement of s 494A(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that "the provision does not state that the document must be given" by one of the methods in ss 494A(1)(b)(i) or (ii) "be considered by having regard to the substance of the operation of that provision and also associated regulation to which it refers, not by having regard merely to whether there is a literal statement of those words"?
Question 2: Does r 5.02 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) serve "to prescribe the identity of the persons to whom notice must be given, but not the method in which it may be given"?
Question 3: Can it be said that "s 501G(1) when read with reg 5.02, does not state that the document must be given by a method prescribed for the purpose of giving documents to a person in immigration detention, and the Minister may, by operation of s 494A(1), give the document to a person by any method that he or she considers appropriate"?
Question 4: Was it sufficient, to satisfy the requirements of reg 5.02, that the document setting out reasons of the non-revocation decision was emailed to the person authorised by the appellant?
The FCAFC answered those questions as follows: