Case Law Updates

Federal Court (Full Court). Did the Tribunal's finding involve a misinterpretation of the law, in that it found the appellant to have been 'convicted', in the absence of a court conviction? Was it sufficient for the purpose of para 8.4(4)(f) of Direction 99 for the AAT to consider the view expressed by a child, without considering the document where that view was expressed?

Federal Court (Full Court). Was it permissible for the Tribunal to conclude that the Appellant's risk of recidivism fell within a broad range, namely "from (1) at best, low-moderate; and (2), more likely, a risk of re-offending that is now little or no different than what it was at the time of his most recent removal from the Australian community"?

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). Does the word "may" in s 501CA(4) indicate a discretion? Was AAT obliged to consider best interests of minor children, even if those interests were not advanced by the appellant? If so, can it nevertheless be said that AAT "is required to assess the best interests of the child based on the evidence and submissions before it and is not under a general duty to inquire about matters not raised"? If a child who is not a NZ citizen is granted a subclass 444 visa under s 78(1), does it immediately cease to have effect? If a person's visa is cancelled under s 501(3A), is a visa granted to their child under s 78 cancelled by operation of s 140(3)? If so, does the revocation of a visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) have the effect of nullifying a consequential cancellation under s 140(3)? Does Teoh still have work to do?

Federal Court. Did the terrible pressures of time under which the Tribunal was obliged to make its review decision (the 84-day rule in s 500(6L(c)) provide a justification for the Tribunal having failed to take into account the best interests of minor children to be affected by its decision? Is the offence of failing to comply with a request made by the police to supply personal details, per se, contemplated by para 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction 90?

Federal Court. Does the fact that a particular conclusion on a particular issue is based on specialised knowledge "have the result that the rules of procedural fairness do not require that the issue be brought to the attention of an applicant if the issue is a critical or important one which is not obvious on the known material"?

Tribunal: One of the components of the Australian study requirement (ASR) is that the applicant must have completed one or more courses that "were completed as a result of a total of at least 2 academic years study". It is commonly said that the duration of the course/s must be of 92 weeks. Is that correct? In this decision, the Tribunal accepted that 2 concurrent courses of 78 weeks each were sufficient to satisfy the ASR. We explain why.

Federal Court: In decision under s 501CA(4), AAT wrote: "The [Minister] has ... submitted that the duty to remove a person from Australia only arises if it is reasonably practical [sic] to do so. The Tribunal agrees with this submission. The period of detention is fixed until it is reasonably practicable to remove a person". Did AAT misinterpret ss 197C & 198? In regards to non-refoulement obligations, AAT referred only the “existence of the non-refoulement obligation” and to the fact that the Applicant was a person “to whom Australia has non-refoulement obligations”. Did AAT give "active consideration to the likely significant harms" that refoulement would entail, as mandated by Direction 65? Did AAT consider the prospect of indefinite detention?

Federal Court (Full Court) extends the High Court's materiality test in Hossain: 'the requirement of materiality for there to be jurisdictional error applies to a court as much as it does to an administrative decision-maker'

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"?