Case Law Updates

High Court: Should an appellate court make its own finding of fact only where the trial judge's finding of fact was "glaringly improbable" or "contrary to compelling inferences"? Whatever the answer is, it arguably applies to migration matters.

Federal Court. Rule in Browne v Dunn: "if you intend to impeach a witness you are bound, whilst he is in the [witness] box, to give him an opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him". Does that rule apply to Tribunal decisions? Further, according to the hearsay rule, out-of-court representations made by a person are not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representations, with exceptions. Does the hearsay rule apply to Tribunal decisions? We summarise the answer to these and several other questions.

High Court. In some cases, may a statutory provision by which: a right of appeal is conferred impliedly grant jurisdiction to hear the appeal; jurisdiction is granted to hear an appeal impliedly confer a right to appeal? Is a provision that grants jurisdiction to a court to be construed "with all the amplitude that the ordinary meaning of its words admits"?

Agent had been suspended for 3 months and until certain conditions were met. As MARA received no communication from the Agent, the suspension continued to be in effect. MARA then commenced an investigation and found that: Agent had "disengaged from the migration advice profession"; his "prolonged failure to engage with [MARA] and endeavour to comply with the conditions imposed on his suspension appears to demonstrate a blatant disregard for [MARA], the migration advice regulatory scheme, and his former clients".

Federal Court: AAT made jurisdictional error by characterising applicant's actions as a 9-year-old as 'offences'

Federal Court. Is the statutory bar imposed by s 501E of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) an inevitable, immediate and direct consequence of the Minister exercising the power conferred by s 501BA, with the result that such a consequence has to be considered when exercising that power?

High Court. In determining whether removal to a country is practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future, can the steps practically available to be taken "be expected frequently to include administrative processes directed to removal which require the cooperation of the detainee and in which the detainee has the capacity to cooperate"?

Federal Court. Is the risk posed by the non-citizen in question to the Australian community a mandatory relevant consideration for the Minister when exercising the discretion under s 501A(3)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?

High Court. Was the Respondent's finding of guilt as a child made without recording of a conviction, with the result that his offending as a minor was an irrelevant consideration and that the Minister's consideration of it was erroneous, even if the Respondent referred to his offending as a child in his submissions to the Minister?

Federal Court: Appellant did not satisfy cl 602.212(6)(b). Thus, cl 602.213(3) & (5) required satisfaction of cl 3001. DHA refused application, as it was lodged after 28-day deadline and thus did not satisfy cl 3001. DHA's decision did not explicitly refer to cl 602.212(6). AAT affirmed decision, but failed to explicitly refer to which parts of cl 602.212(6) or cl 3001 were not satisfied. Did AAT's failure to explicitly mention those parts constitute failure to give proper consideration to the issues before it? If  AAT makes erroneous reference to a written submission that was not in fact provided to it, is that, without more, a jurisdictional error? What is a "substantive temporary visa"?