Case Law Updates

High Court. Do the verbs "give" and "invite" in s 501CA(3) require that regard be had to the circumstances of the recipient? Must the information and invitation be given by the Minister, or a delegate, personally? Did the timeframe of 28 days within which to make a revocation request under s 501CA(4) run from the date the invitation was sent via email to the immigration detention centre, instead of when it was handed to the respondent a day later? By incorrectly stating the 28 days by reference to the date of the email, was the invitation invalid? Can an analogy be drawn with DFQ17 ?

Federal Court. May the extent of what a habeas corpus applicant is required to demonstrate to secure his/her release have regard to the extent to which knowledge of relevant matters is in the hands of the detainer? Can an action for false imprisonment be brought by a person who has no basis at all for a view that the detention was not lawfully justified? In a claim for false imprisonment, must the applicant negative a defence which the respondent may have? In other words, is the lack of a defence an element of the tort?

Federal Court: Ministerial Direction No 65, now replaced by Direction No 79, provided as follows: "Where the [DFAT] has prepared a country information assessment expressly for protection status determination processes, and that assessment is available to the decision-maker, the decision-maker must take into account that assessment, where relevant, in making that decision". Are decision makers obliged to consider DFAT reports when making decisions to which Direction No 65 applies?

Federal Court (Full Court). This non-migration decision which might have consequences for migration decisions. Can it be said that a decision under s 11(6) of the CERP Rules not to exercise the "later time" discretion, made in the context of a decision that a person is not entitled to a jobkeeper payment because they did not have an ABN on 12 March 2020, does not fall within s 13(2)(a) of the CERP Act? If so, did s 43 of the AAT Act nevertheless give the Tribunal the power to exercise the "later time" discretion?

Federal Court. Is an alien who has no legal right to remain in Australia "permitted to engineer their own release into the community by frustrating the efforts of officers to carry out their duty under s 198 of the Act"? If so, should a non-citizen who seeks to prevent his/her return to the country where they fear harm, but does not seek to prevent his/her removal from Australia to some other place, be seen as engineering their own release into the community?

Federal Court. Is there a serious question to be tried, namely whether the Secretary is under a duty to bring the applicant’s request for ministerial intervention under s 48B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to the Minister’s attention? Can it be said that, although any potential harm to the applicant if he is removed is not a reason for considering that the duty in s 198(6) to remove him does not exist, harm if removed is relevant to the balance of convenience?

MARA: "I am satisfied that the Former Agent deliberately misled [the client] on the lodgement process and on the progress of the visa application/s in order to conceal from [the client] the deficiencies in his working knowledge of migration legislation..."

Federal Court (Full Court). In the context of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal said: "the Tribunal does not consider that drugs are as readily available in detention as they are in the community". Was that a finding for which specific evidence or other material was required? Or could it be made based on the Tribunal’s personal or specialised knowledge?

Federal Court (Full Court): In SZMTA, HCA held that: error was jurisdictional only if it was material, that is if a different decision could have been made had the error not been made; materiality is a question of fact of which judicial review applicants bear the onus of proof. In Ibrahim, FCAFC held that it was incumbent on the judicial review applicant to demonstrate what would or could have occurred had the error not been made. In Nguyen, FCAFC, differently constituted, disagreed with that aspect of Ibrahim. Can that division be resolved? Were those cases distinguished here?

High Court. Was the Respondent's finding of guilt as a child made without recording of a conviction, with the result that his offending as a minor was an irrelevant consideration and that the Minister's consideration of it was erroneous, even if the Respondent referred to his offending as a child in his submissions to the Minister?