Case Law Updates

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. Could a subsequent s 501(3A) cancellation decision rely on a conviction if that conviction was previously taken into account when deciding to revoke a mandatory cancellation?

Federal Court. In the context of s 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), is the state of an applicant's mental health now and into the future a matter which is only to be counted to the extent that it favours the applicant?

High Court. Would s 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) be Constitutionally valid to the extent that it is reasonably capable of being seen as necessary for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the naturalisation process? If so, is it so capable? Is s 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Citizenship Act invalid in its operation in respect of the plaintiff because it is not supported by s 51(xix) of the Constitution (naturalisation) or because it reposes in the Minister the exclusively judicial function of punishing criminal guilt?

High Court. Is the effect of Ch III of the Constitution is to make punishment of criminal conduct exclusively judicial even if the punishment is separated from the adjudication of that criminal guilt? Did s 36D(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) purport to vest such a power to impose additional or further punishment in the Minister? If so, is s 36D invalid in its operation in respect of the applicant because it reposes in the Minister for Home Affairs the exclusively judicial function of punishing criminal guilt?

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 (Full Court). Where the Tribunal affirms a decision or remits it to the original repository of the power, is it exercising a power under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), with the result that its decision is exempt from the validation provisions of the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Act 2023 (Cth) (Amending Act)? If so, is that decision nevertheless exempt from the validation provisions of the Amending Act, as the Tribunal “did something else” within the meaning of item 2 of Sch 1 of the Amending Act?

Federal Court (Full Court). Does item 4 of the Migration Amendment (Aggregate Sentences) Act 2023 (Cth) (Amending Act) involve a usurpation of judicial power? Does item 4 have the effect of withdrawing or fettering the entrenched jurisdiction of the High Court under s 75(iii) and (v) of the Constitution? Do items 4(3), (4) and (5)(b)(i) of Sch 1 to the Amending Act effect an acquisition of the applicant’s right to sue for false imprisonment otherwise than on just terms, contrary to s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution?

Federal Court. Para 8.2 of Direction 90 required the Tribunal to consider family violence for the purpose of reviewing a decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act. Can the Tribunal fulfil its obligation to take account of whether the applicant's conduct constituted family violence without considering whether the victims of that violence were members of his family?

Federal Court. The applicant was notified of the intention to consider cancelling his visa under s 501(2), based on the "2008 conviction". The Minister did not cancel the visa, after which the applicant was convicted of further offences. The Minister then cancelled the visa under s 501(2), based on the 2008 conviction, but not the further convictions. Due to Makasa, the reliance on the same conviction was erroneous. Was the error nevertheless immaterial, as the further convictions (if they had been relied upon) would have formed an independent basis upon which the applicant failed the character test?