Court proceedings to be adjourned pending Royal Assent of Bill addressing Pearson?

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

Question 1: The Full Court in Pearson had "unanimously held that an aggregate sentence of imprisonment imposed under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) was neither a single sentence to a term of imprisonment nor a sentence to impose two or more terms of imprisonment for the purposes of s 501 of the Migration Act and, as a consequence, the appellant’s visa was not amenable to mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A)". While it is highly likely that Royal Assent will be given to the Bill which was read three times in both houses of Parliament to modify the Act in response to Pearson, is it not inevitable that the Bill will be presented for Royal Assent?

Question 2: Can a formal submission only be made that a decision of another Full Court is plainly wrong and should not be followed?

Question 3:  Does it follow from the fact that a delegate had no power to cancel a visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that the discretion to revoke the original decision under s 501CA(4) was never enlivened?

Question 4: If the answer to Question 2 is 'yes', does it necessarily follow that the Tribunal had no power to decide whether the invalid cancellation should be revoked?

Question 4: Has the Appellant's visa, which was invalidly cancelled as per the reasoning in Pearson, remained in full force and effect, whatever may be the effect of the Bill if ultimately enacted into law with retrospective effect?

The FCAFC answered those questions as follows: