Federal Court. Did the terrible pressures of time under which the Tribunal was obliged to make its review decision (the 84-day rule in s 500(6L(c)) provide a justification for the Tribunal having failed to take into account the best interests of minor children to be affected by its decision? Is the offence of failing to comply with a request made by the police to supply personal details, per se, contemplated by para 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction 90?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: In a case where the Tribunal was reviewing a non-revocation decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), did the administrative decision-making continuum commences with the application for revocation of the visa cancellation and the contents of the Personal Circumstances Form completed by the non-citizen?
Question 2: Did the terrible pressures of time under which the Tribunal was obliged to make its review decision (the 84-day rule in s 500(6L)(c)) provide a justification for the Tribunal having failed to take into account the best interests of minor children to be affected by its decision?
Question 3: Did the statements of facts, issues and contentions authored the Applicant have probative as well as assertive quality for the purposes of administrative decision-making?
Question 4: Para 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction 90 provided, in the context of the protection of the Australian community, that the Australian Government and the Australian community considered the following types of crimes or conduct to be serious: "crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties". Can it be said that the offence of failing to comply with a request made by the police to supply personal details, per se, is not relevantly a “serious offence” because it "is not, on its face, an offence committed against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: