Does s 501(6)(d)(iv) offend freedom of political communication?
High Court. Does s 501(6)(d)(iv) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) offend the freedom of political communication implied in the Constitution?
Error to disregard documents not in English?
High Court. Did the delegate fail to comply with ss 56 and 62 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and thus made a jurisdictional error, by saying that "any documents that are not translated by accredited translators in Australia, or by official offshore translators, will not be included as part of [the assessment of whether to grant a visa]"?
Section 109 of the Constitution interpreted
High Court. Can it be said that the type of invalidity effected by s 109 of the Constitution does not render the State law void or beyond State legislative power, but instead renders the State law "inoperative"? If so, does it follow that, "on and from the Commonwealth law ceasing to have effect, the State law resumes its full force and effect"?
Relying on old reoffending risk assessment to determine current risk?
Federal Court. Was it legally unreasonable for the Assistant Minister to adopt the assessment of a psychologist "on the risk of the applicant reoffending, undertaken nine months previously, in the absence of evidence that the applicant had addressed certain matters to reduce that risk, to make a current assessment on risk"?
Appeal: meaning of ‘conviction’
Federal Court (Full Court). Did the Tribunal's finding involve a misinterpretation of the law, in that it found the appellant to have been 'convicted', in the absence of a court conviction? Was it sufficient for the purpose of para 8.4(4)(f) of Direction 99 for the AAT to consider the view expressed by a child, without considering the document where that view was expressed?
Plaintiff M1/2021 distinguished due to para 8.1.2(2)(b)(i) of Direction 110?
Federal Court. The High Court's majority held in Plaintiff M1/2021 that a decision-maker must "read, identify, understand and evaluate" representations made for the purposes of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), even though that provision does not render every statement in a representation a mandatory consideration. Should that be contrasted with para 8.1.2(2)(b)(i) of Direction 110, which renders 'information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending' a mandatory consideration?
Clause 132.227(2)(b): significant benefit implied?
High Court (single Justice). Do the words 'benefits the Australian economy' in cl 132.227(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) imply a significant benefit?
Logical to reason that appellant was a risk to community, even though he would...
Federal Court (Full Court). Was it legally unreasonable, irrational or illogical for the Minister to conclude that the risk that the appellant posed to the community and community expectations weighed in favour of cancellation of his visa when the appellant would remain in the community anyway on a BVR because of the effect of NZYQ?
Offer of compromise in JR cases: can rejection lead to adverse costs order?
Federal Court. The judicial review applicant rejected an offer of compromise by the Respondent in relation to costs which was as good as the result of the case. Did that rejection justify him paying costs incurred by the Respondent after the expiry of the offer?
Is legal unreasonableness on the way to final conclusion material by definition?
Federal Court (Full Court). Instead of saying that errors in the form of legal unreasonableness in the making of a finding “on the way” to the final conclusion are material by definition, can it be said that they are material if they are critical findings, in the sense that there is a built-in requirement of materiality?