Case Law Updates

Federal Court. Was the prospect of indefinite detention a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the Tribunal’s decision which should have been considered, as the the obligation to consider it was not limited to "circumstances where the Tribunal was satisfied that Australia would be in breach of its international non-refoulement obligations should the applicant be returned" to their home country? In other words, does the Full Court decision in DQM18 prevail over AZAFQ to the extent of any inconsistency?

Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, "if executive power is to be exercised with a conscious understanding that it will result in the long term separation of a child from a loving and supporting parent with likely long term harm to the children then, given the nature of the obligation to give reasons in the present case, it is to be expected that the seriousness of that consequence and its consideration would both be manifested expressly in the reasons of the Minister"?

Federal Court. Could a mistranslation error leading to a finding that an applicant lacked credibility fall within the type of error referred to by the High Court in DVO16?

Federal Court. Is the Tribunal bound to uncritically accept an expert's opinion? If not, is it nevertheless bound to do so if the expert's opinion was adduced before the Tribunal by a non-citizen and the Minister was a party who did not adduce any evidence to contradict that opinion?

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 (Full Court). Was the Tribunal entitled to re-characterise the Appellant's conduct and, in doing so, depart from the characterisation adopted by the sentencing judges in a significant way, by labelling the conduct as 'predatory'? In other words, was the Tribunal entitled to go behind the sentencing remarks? If so, does it follow that the Tribunal "was required, in the circumstances, to inform the appellant that it may form a different view and to invite comment from the appellant"?

Federal Court. There is no precise standard to determining whether an unarticulated claim has been "squarely raised" or "clearly emerges" from the materials. But will a court be more willing to make that finding in favour of an unrepresented party?

Federal Court (Full Court). One of the judges of the Full Court had appeared as the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in a conviction appeal on a point of law involving the non-citizen in question. The non-citizen's representative applied for that judge to recuse himself from hearing the appeal from an FCA decision dismissing a judicial review application.

Federal Court. Can it be said that, if the Tribunal's "failure to inquire was unreasonable, then for there to be a jurisdictional error the failure must be material in the sense that without the failure there would have been a realistic possibility of a different outcome on the review"? Is non-compliance by the Tribunal with s 424A(1) necessarily material to the outcome?

Federal Court. In considering whether an applicant for visa subclass 309 (partner) was a de facto partner of the visa sponsor, was the Tribunal allowed to consider the best interests of the affected children or related issues or "any hardship that might be occasioned by refusal of the visa, be that to the visa applicant, the sponsor, or their children"?