Federal Court. As the Appellant's detention was unlawful because of NZYQ, was it legally unreasonable or irrational to assess the benefit to the community on the basis of a detention which was unlawful?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: In reviewing a decision made under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), could the Tribunal "determine what the legal consequences of the visa remaining cancelled would be without forming a view as to where he might be removed"?
Question 2: Was fact that the Minister could invite the Applicant to apply for a Bridging R (Class WR) visa a direct and immediate statutory consequence of the cancellation under s 501BA, with the result that the Minister had to consider it?
Question 3: In some circumstances, may a failure by a decision-maker to give a reason for a decision permit a court to infer that the decision-maker had no good reason for the decision?
Question 4: As the Appellant's detention was unlawful because of NZYQ, was it legally unreasonable or irrational to assess the benefit to the community on the basis of a detention which was unlawful?
Question 5: Can it be said that, as the Minister "had already agreed that the Applicant could not be removed from Australia, the Minister’s treatment of the best interests of his children proceeds on a misconceived basis that the Applicant would be removed", being irrational?
Question 6: If the answer to Question 5 is 'yes', was the error "immaterial because the effects on the children of the detention would have to be less than the impact upon them of his removal from Australia"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: