Federal Court. Appellant had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. In personally deciding under s 501CA(4) whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Appellant's visa, Minister found that "further" offending of a violent nature by the Appellant could result in serious physical harm to members of the Australian community. Was Minister's decision legally unreasonable in that, although Appellant's conduct led to a violent outcome (death), the nature of the conduct was not violent, as there was no intent to harm? Is a subclass 444 visa a "limited stay" visa?
The questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Was the Minister's decision legally unreasonable in that, although the Appellant's conduct led to a violent outcome (death), the nature of that conduct was not violent as there was no intent to cause death?
Question 2: Is a subclass 444 visa a "limited stay" visa?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: