Federal Court. Was the Applicant a non-alien who was not subject to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), with the result that his detention under s 189(1) of the Act was unlawful, because: he was "accepted by the Australian body politic and community as a citizen ...; the fact that he renounced that citizenship in 1995 does not change his non-alien status"; or "he has the essential characteristics of a non-alien, based on a holistic assessment of his circumstances"?
Federal Court. In assessing the risk of a non-citizen re-offending for the purpose s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), is it unnecessary for a decision-maker to descend to a level of granularity of assessing the risk of specific future criminal conduct, as that would "require the Minister to either develop superhuman prescience or engage in what could only be wild speculation which would ultimately be meaningless"? Is there a "period of limitation in the Act which might prevent the Minister taking action under s 501(2)"?
Federal Court. If the Minister personally makes a decision under s 501CA(4): is he required "to consider and understand the representations received" for himself, even if he is given an accurate summary of such representations; must he give "reasons as to why the expectations of the Australian community should count against revocation"? Must s 501CA(4) decisions be made within a reasonable period of time? May the ongoing validity of a decision under s 501(3A) depend upon due and prompt performance of the power under s 501CA(4)?
Supreme Court of New South Wales. Is the question of whether, in applying a legislative power or discretion that does not infringe on the Constitution and is thus valid, the application of that power infringes on the Constitution a question of constitutional law? If not, does it mean that the implied freedom of political communication may not be a relevant consideration in the exercise of a discretion under any legislation?
Federal Circuit and Family Court. May a court "award costs where an underlying dispute is rendered moot, even where a decision is not delivered"? If so, where "the relevant supervening event occurs after a trial on the merits, with full argument and submissions from the parties, but before the decision is handed down", will those arguments hold greater weight in the decision whether to make a costs order? Should no order be made, as both sides got what they wanted?
Federal Court. Is a "fast track applicant" a "fast track review applicant" unless and until the Minister forms the opinion that he/she is an "excluded fast track review applicant", with the consequence that, until and if that opinion is formed, a refusal to grant him/her a protection visa should be referred to the IAA even if the applicant, objectively, "has made a claim for protection in a country other than Australia that was refused by" that country or the UNHCR Office?
Federal Court (Full Court). Is the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court (FCC) conferred by s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) limited to remedies by way of judicial review? Was the power of the FCC circumscribed in the context of the judicial review of migration decisions "because of the omission of declaratory relief from the specific public law remedies mentioned in s 75(v) of the Constitution"? If the relief sought is "hopeless, inutile and hypothetical", does it mean that the court in which it is sought lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief?
Federal Court. Does the principle according to which costs ordinarily follow the event "answer the question as to whether costs should be ordered when, as in the present case, the application was not determined"? If the Applicant would have been substantially successful, had he not been granted the visa, is this a circumstance that favours costs being awarded against the Respondent? In a real sense, was the judicial review application directed at the Applicant's liberty?
Federal Court. Given the Tribunal's extensive references to the Applicant's drug addiction throughout its reasons, can it realistically be supposed that the Tribunal overlooked that addiction in concluding generally that he was "apparently in good health" for the purpose of cl 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 90?
Federal Court (Full Court). If a visa applicant wrongly answers a question in a visa application form and in a subsequent visa application freely answers the same question correctly, could the latter answer be said to indicate that the incorrect answer did not involve purposeful falsity for the purpose of PIC 4020? Does the fact that the IELTS exam on which the Appellant's score was 7 suggest that the Appellant knew the meaning of the legal term "conviction"?