Case Law Updates

Federal Court: The writer has voiced concerns in several articles about the fact that, sometimes, merits review is inadvertently labelled by the Minister as materiality test considerations. With respect, were those concerns were echoed by the FCA? Further, can it be said that, as the Tribunal "is not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence”, it cannot "decline to accept the tender by or on behalf of an applicant at a hearing of a document containing information capable of corroborating the basis of that applicant’s visa claim"?

Federal Court. AAT set aside delegate's decision to refuse protection visa and granted Respondent a visa. Minister applied to FCA for judicial review, claiming AAT had no jurisdiction to grant the visa. Minister also made interlocutory application for matter to be expedited and kept Respondent in detention despite visa grant. Respondent made interlocutory application for his immediate release, on the basis that he was being unlawfully detained. Should FCA expedite the hearing of the Minister's judicial review application? Did FCA have jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent's interlocutory application for release? Did FCA have the power to issue writ of habeas corpus? Was Respondent unlawfully detained after Tribunal granted him a visa?

Federal Court (Full Court). "In light of the findings of the Tribunal (which are treated as findings of the Minister pursuant to s 43(6) of the [AAT Act]), and/or the direction of the Tribunal made pursuant to s 43(1) of the AAT Act", was the Minister "obliged to conclude that [the respondent] was not a danger and/or risk to the Australian community"? Should it be "implied into s 501(1) that a Tribunal’s earlier decision as to the application of s 36(1C)(b) is a mandatory relevant consideration on a subsequent consideration of the application of s 501(1)"?

Federal Court (Full Court). Do the terms 'end of the day' mean end of daylight hours for the purpose of the reference to 12 months' imprisonment in ss 501(7)(c)-(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), due to s 47(6) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)? Before cancelling the visa under s 501(3A), was Minister was required to make an anterior decision whether to exercise power under a different provision, such as s 501(2), and afford the appellant the opportunity to be heard about that anterior decision? Did 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 90 require the Tribunal to make its own assessment of the seriousness of the offending?

Federal Court. Minister: cancelled Applicant's child visa under s 501; detained him under s 189; refused to grant him a protection visa, despite finding he was owed protection; declined to consider granting him a visa under s 195A. Minister accepted that, from 26 July 2019, he was required to remove Applicant from Australia as soon as reasonably possible, due to s 198(6). Until the FCA decision on 11 Sep 2020, Minister had not removed him, but kept him detained. FCA held that, although s 196(1)(a) says an unlawful non-citizen (UNC) must be kept in detention "until" he/she is removed under s 198, detention is unlawful after the first point at which point removal becomes reasonably possible. Minister said that removal was not reasonably practicable, as that would breach international non-refoulement obligations. FCA held that that breach was a moral, but not a legal, justification, given s 197C. As a result, FCA ordered Applicant's release, despite the fact he still was a UNC.

High Court. Can it be said that "an order of an inferior court that is affected by jurisdictional error has no legal force as an order of that court so that, for example, a failure to obey such an order cannot be a contempt of that court"?

High Court. Does the practice in the Federal Court (FCA) of hearing an extension of time application together with argument on the substantive application require the FCA to avoid "conflating the two applications by refusing to extend time on the basis of a final determination of the issues raised by the substantive application, instead of by reference to ... what was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice"? If so, is the FCA limited to an impressionistic assessment of the merits of the substantive application?

Federal Court. Should the words in brackets be read into cl 6.3(5) of Direction 79: "Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life [or their adult life], or from a very young age"?

Federal Court. Does the rule in Browne and Dunn, being one of fairness, apply equally to a trial judge as to counsel?

Federal Court. Can it be said that the "Minister has no interests in the outcome of this litigation beyond ensuring that the law of the Parliament is applied correctly to the personal circumstances of a litigant who has been deprived of his liberty by the State"?