Best interests of minor children and privilege against self-incrimination
Federal Court. Is the Tribunal required under Direction 99 to "consider whether the decision is in the best interests of a particular child if the facts known to the Tribunal are such as to raise a realistic question as to whether the decision will affect that child"?
Consequence of non-compliance with statutory condition
High Court. Is the statutory consequence of non-compliance with a statutory condition of an exercise of power as much a question of statutory construction as is the content of the condition?
Principles of open justice
High Court. Can it be said that, while "the broad principle is that the Courts ... must ... administer justice in public", the exceptions to this broad principle are "themselves the outcome of a yet more fundamental principle that the chief object of Courts of justice must be to secure that justice is done"?
AAT bound to consider Direction in force at time of AAT application?
Federal Court (Full Court). Is the Tribunal required to apply the Direction in force at the time when the application for merits review is made, instead of the Direction in force at the time when the Tribunal makes its decision? Can the Tribunal remit a matter for reconsideration, instead of re-exercising the discretion under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for itself?
Balance of convenience and ss 46A(2) and 198
Federal Court. The Applicant, an unauthorised maritime arrival, made a request for Ministerial intervention under s 46A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Before determining that request, the Applicant was told that he would be removed from Australia. In an application for interlocutory injunction to restrain his removal, did the balance of convenience favour the respondents because removal would frustrate the duty under s 198?
Do model litigant rules constrain AAT’s powers?
Federal Court (Full Court). Is the Minister's compliance with the model litigant obligations a constraint on the exercise by the Tribunal of its powers? Can a change to a foreshadowed hearing procedure "give rise to procedural unfairness where the affected person does not have the chance to object to the change"?
Criterion 5001 a mandatory relevant consideration?
Federal Court. In the context of cancellation under s 501(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), was the consequence brought about by cl 5001 of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) a mandatory relevant consideration, whether or not the Applicant made claims bearing on the latter provision?
AAT to give reasons on why to affirm, instead of dismissing, and vice-versa?
Federal Court. Can it be said that, "if an applicant fails to appear at a scheduled hearing, the Tribunal has three options: (i) to proceed to make a decision on the review (s 426A(1A)(a)); (ii) to dismiss the application “without any further consideration of the application or information before the Tribunal” (s 426A(1A)(b)); or (iii) to adjourn the review and reschedule the hearing (ss 426A(2) and 427(1)(b))"? If so, must its decision nevertheless have an evident and intelligible justification?
“A multifactorial evaluative decision”
Federal Court (Federal Court). Once an important underpinning of the decision in relation to several elements is fundamentally altered, is it possible to have confidence in what the outcome would have been?
Duty in s 473CB(1)(c) to be re-exercised based on new information after remittal?
Federal Court (Full Court). In re-exercising the duty under s 473CB(1)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), must the Secretary identify only documents that were within their possession or control at the time that the decision was referred to the IAA by the Minister, or must the Secretary also have regard to the documents in their possession at the time that they re-exercise that duty?