Case Law Updates

Federal Court. IAA affirmed DHA's decision and FCCA dismissed judicial review application. Appellant appealed to FCA, which heard appeal and reserved judgement on 30 May 2019. On 21 Dec 2020, Minister filed affidavit affirming that Appellant departed Australia on 13 Aug 2019, was still offshore and that his BVE ceased to be in effect. Appellant held no visa to re-enter Australia. Did Appellant abandon the appeal by leaving Australia?

Federal Court (Full Court). Till 2014, Migration Act 1958 defined "refugee" by reference to the "Convention", under which a person was not a refugee if it would be reasonable to relocate to a place in their home country where they would not be persecuted (the relocation principle). Since 2014, the Act has defined a "refugee" as a person whose "real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country", among other things (s 5J(1)(c)). The FCAFC accepted that the relocation principle no longer applies to the definition of "refugee". However, does the reference in s 5J(1)(c) to all areas of a receiving country mean all areas where there is safe human habitation and to which safe access is lawfully possible?

Federal Court. Can it be said that, "in order to raise a relevant issue under cl 9.2 there needs to be some evidence of the relevant support in the home country"? For the purpose of cl 9.2, is it "necessary that there be some evidence or material to demonstrate there is some qualitative difference between the circumstances in Australia and those in the applicant’s home country"?

Federal Court (Full Court). The Minister found that the Appellant failed to recognise that he had "psychological sexual issues relating to children". Can it be said that the "term “psychology”, acontextualised, is ambiguous in that it can refer to the scientific study of the human mind or the mental (in contrast to physical) characteristics, properties or attitudes of a person or persons"? If so, was the adjective "psychological" used by the Minister in its unscientific sense?

High Court. Is the existence of a duty to afford procedural fairness a question of statutory interpretation? Is there a "strong" common law presumption, "generally applicable to any statutory power the exercise of which is capable of having an adverse effect on legally recognised rights or interests, that the exercise of the power is impliedly conditioned on the observance of procedural fairness"?

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 (Full Court). Secretary provided the IAA with allegations from police and police's decision not to prosecute the Appellant. Those materials were irrelevant to the IAA's task and the Appellant knew they had been provided. The IAA afforded the Appellant an opportunity to address the allegations in those materials, accepted 'new information' from him that no charges would be laid, recognised that the police materials were irrelevant and expressly said it gave them no weight. Was there nevertheless a reasonable apprehension of subconscious bias? Does a reference to relative safety necessarily bespeak error?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said in the context of s 501CA(4) that "there is no foundation for the submission that [the administrative decision-maker] erred by failing to take into account a matter which was not advanced to him and which, if it arose, did so only by reason of the findings which he had made"?

Federal Court. Minister concluded that he was “unable to make a finding about” or was “unable to assess the likelihood of” the applicant facing the claimed harm if returned to his country. Can that statement be understood as a failure to perform the statutory task, depending on the circumstances? If so, were such circumstances present in this case?

Federal Court. Ground 2 of the judicial review application was that, in cancelling Applicant's visa, Minister failed to have proper regard to the legal consequences of that decision, the prospect of indefinite detention and the impact on Applicant's mental health. Even if the Minister were required to respond to the interrogatory in a way that supports the submission that, contrary to s 197C of the Act, no person has ever been refouled to Iraq, would that evidence be admissible? Can the collective knowledge of the Department be imputed to the Minister personally?