Federal Court. Was it legally unreasonable for the Minister to conclude that a certain factual situation persisted, without considering whether the age of the evidence made it safe to so conclude?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: In the context of s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), was it "illogical or irrational to rely upon [the Applicant's] lack of remorse because it proceeded from the characterisation of the conduct by the Applicant’s lawyers making submissions in mitigation of sentence"?
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is 'yes', is it necessary to establish the error to be material for it to be jurisdictional?
Question 3: If the Minister apprehended that a factor could have changed in the time since he obtained information about it, would it be legally unreasonable not to invite representations on that factor?
Question 4: Is it the case that "the more dated the material, the more problematic it may become in a given case to make factual findings about present day circumstances within the bounds of legal reasonableness"?
Question 5: Is the threshold to establish unreasonableness through failing to afford an opportunity to be heard “extraordinarily high”?
Question 6: Was it legally unreasonable for the Minister to conclude that a certain factual situation persisted, without considering whether the age of the evidence made it safe to so conclude?
Question 7: Does s 501BA(2) carry an implicit time limit for its exercise?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: