Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court): Does the relocation principle for complementary protection claims apply to children? For instance, if a child is making a protection visa application as a primary applicant, could the child claim, through their parents, that if they return to their country, they will choose an unsafe area for the child, with the result that, if that claim is accepted, the relocation principle will not apply?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "the interest protected by public interest immunity, once a court has determined that such immunity attaches to documents or a class of documents, require that the contents of such documents cannot be disclosed to any person or deployed in evidence in curial proceedings", and that it is "implicit that such material cannot be disclosed to any judge who is called on to determine such cases"?

Federal Court. Did cl 8(4) of Direction 79 require an inquiry as to whether: "one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration"; or one of the other considerations can or should be "afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply"? Could a primary consideration outweigh other primary considerations even if the case is not outside the "circumstances that generally apply", whatever that may mean?

Federal Court (Full Court). Is the question of whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness because he was not reminded of the privilege against self-incrimination the same as the question of whether what occurred was “material”?

Federal Court: In considering non-refoulement obligations in the context of a decision under s 501CA(4) and Direction 65, did Minister "[misunderstand] that the applicant’s claims would 'necessarily' be considered in the event that the applicant was to make an application for a protection visa"? Minister said it was "unnecessary to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are owed in respect of [the applicant] for the purposes of the present decision as he is able to make a valid application for a Protection visa". Is it implicit that Minister understood that such obligations would be considered in the same way in the context of an application for a protection visa? Did Minister fail to give genuine consideration to matters raised by the Applicant outside of the concept of non-refoulement obligations?

Federal Court (Full Court): As mentioned in previous articles, at least 4 single-judge Federal Court decisions are authorities for the proposition that the materiality test expounded by the High Court in Hossain should not be treated as binary in nature. Now, the Full Court has said something which "might" be interpreted as treating the materiality test as binary. If that is the case, we respectfully disagree and explain why.

Federal Court. Is it reasonably arguable that the question of whether it is ‘reasonably practicable’ to remove a person from Australia is an objective ‘jurisdictional fact’, that is a fact which a court can and should determine for itself?

Federal Court: the A-G declined to recommend to the Governor-General that the Applicant be pardoned and to refer her case to the Queensland Court of Appeal. Were those decisions by the A-G judicially reviewable? Why this decision matters to our clients: under s 501(10) of the Migration Act 1958, a conviction is to be disregarded for the purposes of the character test if the person has been pardoned or the conviction has been quashed.

Federal Court. Was the Applicant "entitled to have his claims for protection in respect of Nauru determined and, if found to be well founded, not to be refouled to Nauru", in light of the omission in s 197C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to a reference to s 198AD, despite the Minister's power to take him to Nauru pursuant to s 198AD and despite the fact that the Migration Act does not provide a statutory mechanism to determine such a claim?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, in forming a view, for the purposes of r 1.15AA(1)(e) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), "as to whether the assistance cannot reasonably be (a) provided by any other relative of the resident (being a relative who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen), or (b) obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia, it is necessary for the Tribunal to have regard to the nature and extent of the relevant person’s need for direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life"?