Comparative risk of harm between BVR and other visa?

Some of the questions to the Full Court of the Federal Court (FCAFC) were as follows:

Question 1: Does the question of whether an error is jurisdictional turn on whether it was material, as opposed to whether it was an error of law? In other words, has the dichotomy in migration law between an error of law and an error of fact fallen out of grace?

Question 2: Can it be said that "jurisdictional error arising from an error of law can be found only where the error of law concerns the legal consequences of the decision and the legal consequences of the decision are mandatory relevant considerations"?

Question 3: In considering under Direction 110 the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, may it be "appropriate for a decision maker to adopt a comparative risk analysis that looks at the relative risk to the community posed by the non-citizen holding the cancelled visa compared to a BVR"?

Question 4: If the answer to Question 3 is 'yes', would the circumstances in which that comparison is appropriate include "where that non-citizen is affected by the High Court’s decision in NZYQ (and will remain in the Australian community regardless of a revocation decision being made) and that non-citizen makes a claim relating to the difference in risk depending on the visa held"?

Question 5: Can it be said that "there is not necessarily illogicality or irrationality in cancelling a non-citizen’s visa in circumstances where the non-citizen will nonetheless remain in Australia on a BVR", in that "cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa in such circumstances can ensure that the non-citizen remains liable to be removed from Australia, even if their removal is not reasonably practicable at the time of the decision"?

The FCAFC answered those questions as follows: