Federal Court: In SZSSJ, HCA had found that "officers conducting the ITOAs were specifically instructed to assess the effect of the Data Breach on Australia's non-refoulement obligations adopting the assumption that an applicant's personal information may have been accessed by authorities in the country in which the applicant feared [being returned to]". Here, DHA informed Second Appellant that it would "assess any implications for [him] personally as part of its normal processes". Unlike in SZSSJ, "there was no evidence in the present case as to what the assessment in accordance with the department’s 'normal processes' came to entail". Can HCA's description of the ITOA process in SZSSJ be used as evidence in other cases?
The Federal Court answered that question as follows: