Federal Court (Full Court). In an "appeal" under s 44(1) of the AAT Act, does a misinterpretation of the law amount to an error only if it is material to the decision in question? If not, is the issue of the materiality of an error nevertheless relevant to whether relief should be refused in the exercise of the Court’s discretion? In exercising the residual discretion under s 34(2) Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), was the Tribunal limited to considering conduct or matters which had resulted in convictions within the ambit of ss 34(2)(b)(i) to (iv)?
Some of the questions to the Full Court of the Federal Court (FCAFC) were as follows:
Question 1: Is the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by s 44(1) of the AAT Act, which is directed to questions of law, confined to jurisdictional error? In other words, in an "appeal" under s 44(1) of the AAT Act, does a misinterpretation of the law amount to an error only if the misinterpretation was material to the decision in question?
Question 2: Section 34(2)(c) of the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) provided as follows: "The Minister may, by writing, revoke a person’s Australian citizenship if ... the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australia citizen". Can it be said that there is "a “significant and critical” difference between the requisite assessment of whether it is “contrary to the public interest for a person to remain an Australian citizen” and an assessment of whether it would be “in the public interest for a person no longer to remain an Australian citizen”"?
Question 3: If the answer to Question 1 is "no", is the issue of the materiality of an error nevertheless relevant to whether relief should be refused in the exercise of the Court’s discretion?
Question 4: Does s 34(2) of the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) involve the exercise of a residual discretion if the conditions in ss 34(1)(a) to (c) are met?
Question 5: Can it be said that "the satisfaction of the jurisdictional fact [in s 34(2) of the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)] goes some considerable way to influencing the exercise of the discretion", with the result that "the Tribunal had to form a state of satisfaction about the public interest [under s 34(2)(c)] before exercising the discretion [under s 34(2)]"?
Question 6: If an Australian citizen admits before the Tribunal to falsification and dishonesty over and above the dishonesty evidenced by the convictions that enlivened s 34(2)(b)(i) of the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) and the Minister argues before the Tribunal that such admission should be considered by the Tribunal for the purpose of the national interest under s 34(2)(c) and/or the exercise of the residual discretion under s 34(2), is the Tribunal required to do so?
Question 7: In exercising the residual discretion under s 34(2) Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), was the Tribunal limited to considering conduct or matters which had resulted in convictions within the ambit of ss 34(2)(b)(i) to (iv)?
The FCAFC answered those questions as follows: