Federal Court. Even though the applicant had not been convicted in court, the Tribunal found that he had been 'convicted'. Did the Tribunal finding involve a misinterpretation of the law? Could the Tribunal have reasonably considered the view of the applicant's minor child to love the applicant to be irrelevant to the best interests of the child?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Did the Tribunal finding involve a misinterpretation of the law, in that it found the applicant to have been 'convicted', in the absence of a court conviction?
Question 2: In the context of para 8.4(4)(f) of Direction 99, the Tribunal was required to consider "any known views of the child" affected by its decision. Could the Tribunal have reasonably considered the view of the applicant's minor child to love the applicant to be irrelevant to the best interests of the child?
The FCA answered those questions as follows:
The remainder of this article is only available to Case Law and Platinum subscribers.
Read our Terms & Conditions and upgrade below:
Monthly Subscriptions
Annual Subscriptions
Where GST applies, the above amounts are inclusive of GST.
Content Types
Basic Content includes basic news, some media articles and selected announcements.
Premium Content includes all our content, except for Case Law Content. In other words, it includes Basic Content, plus all our articles on legislative and policy changes, industry updates and the Migration Legislation Tracker.
Case Law Content includes Basic Content, plus case law summaries, analysis and extract, but does not include Premium Content.
Platinum Content includes Basic Content, plus Premium Content, plus Case Law Content. In other words, it includes ALL our content.
If you already have a Case Law or Platinum subscription, click on 'Login' below.