Federal Court. A person fails the character test by reason of s 501(6)(ba)(i) if "Minister reasonably suspects that the person has been or is involved in conduct constituting ... an offence under one or more of sections 233A to 234A". Can person fail the test for offences committed before ss 233A to 234A or s 501(6)(ba) were introduced? Can it be said that, although "the reasons for the decision under review are not to be construed minutely and finely with an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error", "a beneficial approach to the reasons does not demand that any ambiguity in them must be resolved in the Minister’s favour"? Was it legally unreasonable for Minister to find that Applicant represented unacceptable risk to the community and yet that he could grant him a visa under s 195A? Was BAL19 wrongly decided?
The questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Can a person fail the character test under s 501(6)(ba)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) because of offences committed before ss 233A to 234A were introduced?
Question 2: Can a person fail the character test under s 501(6)(ba)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) because of offences committed before that provision was introduced?
Question 3: Can it be said that, although "the reasons for the decision under review are not to be construed minutely and finely with an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error", "a beneficial approach to the reasons does not demand that any ambiguity in them must be resolved in the Minister’s favour"?
Question 4: Was it legally unreasonable for the Minister to find that the Applicant represented an unacceptable risk to the community and yet that he could grant him a visa under s 195A?
Question 5: Was BAL19 wrongly decided?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: