Case Law Updates

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"?

Federal Court. Can it be said that "evidence that a particular cohort of persons has a 13% chance of recidivism is equivalent to a statement that 13 out of 100 persons in the cohort will reoffend but that evidence, by itself, says nothing about the likelihood of a particular member in the cohort reoffending"? Did cl 6.3(5) contain a mandatory consideration? Are the offences to which cl 13.1 of Direction No 79 is directed "violent and/or sexual crimes against women, children and vulnerable members of the community"?

Federal Court. For the purpose of s 501(6)(c)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), can the communication of a belief, or the existence of an uncommunicated belief, be considered "present general conduct"? Further, there are 2 incidents of the common law procedural fairness rule: 1) to give an affected person an opportunity to comment on adverse material obtained from other sources; 2) to identify to them issues not obviously open on the known material. Were these incidents excluded by s 51A(1)?

Federal Court. For the purpose of addressing the consideration in cl 6.3(4) of Direction 79, can it be said that it is not permissible for the Tribunal to adopt a "reasonably-minded" member of the Australian community test and that there is a deemed expectation by the use of the preface “The Australian community expects”?

Federal Court. Delegates refused 2 requests made under s 7 of the Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) (Overseas Travel Ban Emergency Requirements) Determination 2020 (Cth). Section 7 provided that an exemption to the travel ban may be granted to an AU citizen or PR in exceptional circumstances, which are demonstrated by providing a compelling reason for needing to leave Australia. Does s 7(2) exhaust the concept of exceptional circumstances? Does the delegate's use of the language of “critical” reason rather than “compelling” reason indicate error? Do the situations which indicate a need for compassion to be exercised fall within the concept of “exceptional circumstances"? Does s 7 call for a balancing exercise of the reason for travel against the risk it might pose to the AU community? Were the circumstances described in Department of Home Affairs' website a policy? Must content of procedural fairness obligations conform to the circumstances of an emergency situation? Was denial of procedural fairness cured by fact that first refusal put Applicants on notice of factors considered by delegate?

Federal Court. In Katoa, the High Court decided that the Federal Court was not limited, in assessing the merits of a judicial review application, to a reasonably impressionistic level of such merits, when considering whether to grant a time extension within which to bring that application. Is the correct approach to consider the proposed ground of appeal at a reasonably impressionistic level?

Federal Court (Full Court): The question to the Assistant Minister under s 501CA was whether there was "another reason" why the cancellation of the Respondent's visa should be revoked. The Respondent did not provide evidence, in his revocation request, of the circumstances which led to the offences. The Assistant Minister found, based on very limited information, that the Respondent posed an unacceptable risk to the Australian community. Was the limited information, in and of itself, a probative basis for that finding?

Federal Court (Full Court): 'While it may be open to the Tribunal to rely on the sort of statistical analysis that it did, there are dangers in relying on such an approach when its fundamental task is to consider the risk that this visa applicant would face if returned'

Federal Court. In NZYQ, the High Court overruled its decision in Al-Kateb. Here, at the time of the Minister's decision, Al-Kateb was still considered good law. Did the Minister's reliance on Al-Kateb shield his decision from jurisdictional error, as it represented the law at the time? Or has NZYQ rather overruled Al-Kateb ab initio (i.e. with retrospective effect)?

Federal Court. Does the language of 362B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "confine the circumstances in which the [AAT's] power to dismiss [an application for review] may be exercised to those cases where the application for review may be described as unmeritorious or where the application for review is not being actively pursued"? Does the AAT have power to conduct hearings via video-link?