Federal Court. Is s 34(5)(a) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) satisfied only where the citizen has been convicted of a single offence, as opposed to multiple offences? Is there a meaningful distinction in the context of s 34(2)(c) between the concepts of it being contrary to the public interest for a person to remain an Australian citizen and it being in the public interest that that person not continue to be an Australian citizen?
Sections 34(2) and 34(5) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) provided:
Citizenship by conferral
(2) The Minister may, by writing, revoke a person’s Australian citizenship if:
(a) the person is an Australian citizen under Subdivision B of Division 2 (including because of the operation of section 32); and
(b) any of the following apply:
(i) the person has been convicted of an offence against section 50 of this Act, or section 137.1 or 137.2 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the person’s application to become an Australian citizen;
(ii) the person has, at any time after making the application to become an Australian citizen, been convicted of a serious offence within the meaning of subsection (5);
(iii) the person obtained the Minister’s approval to become an Australian citizen as a result of migration-related fraud within the meaning of subsection (6);
(iv) the person obtained the Minister’s approval to become an Australian citizen as a result of third-party fraud within the meaning of subsection (8); and
(c) the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.
...
Serious offence
(5) For the purposes of this section, a person has been convicted of a serious offence if:
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence against an Australian law or a foreign law, for which the person has been sentenced to death or to a serious prison sentence; and
(b) the person committed the offence at any time before the person became an Australian citizen.
Section 3 of the Citizenship Act defined a "serious prison sentence" as "a sentence of imprisonment for a period of at least 12 months".
Section 23(b) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) provided: "In any Act: ... (b) words in the singular number include the plural and words in the plural number include the singular."
Section 2 of the Interpretation Act provided:
(1) This Act applies to all Acts (including this Act).
(2) However, the application of this Act or a provision of this Act to an Act or a provision of an Act is subject to a contrary intention.
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: In the context of singular words and plurals, may a contrary intention be identified if the relevant statute otherwise expressly and carefully chooses between using the plural or the singular when required?
Question 2: Does the fact that the provision and the definition both use singular language give rise to an inference of contra-intention for the purpose of s 2(2) of the Interpretation Act?
Question 3: Is s 34(5)(a) of the Citizenship Act satisfied only where the citizen has been convicted of a single offence (as opposed to multiple offences) for which the citizen has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of at least 12 months for that offence?
Question 4: Is there a meaningful distinction in the context of s 34(2)(c) of the Citizenship Act between the concepts of it being contrary to the public interest for the Appellant to remain an Australian citizen and it being in the public interest that the Appellant not continue to be an Australian citizen?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: