Adams v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2001] FCA 1138

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Adams v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1138

MIGRATION – interlocutory application to set aside or stay decision to cancel visa pending determination of appeal to Full Court – whether necessary to secure effectiveness of determination of appeal – interlocutory application for bail – where no challenge to lawfulness of detention – whether Court has power to grant order in nature of bail.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth): ss 475(1)(c), 482, 501

Madafferi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 250 referred to

STEPHEN JOHN ADAMS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
V 361 of 2001

MARSHALL, GOLDBERG & KENNY JJ
16 AUGUST 2001
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 361 of 2001

BETWEEN:

STEPHEN JOHN ADAMS
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL, GOLDBERG & KENNY JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

16 AUGUST 2001

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appellant’s motion filed on 13 August 2001 be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the motion.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 361 of 2001

BETWEEN:

STEPHEN JOHN ADAMS
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL, GOLDBERG & KENNY JJ

DATE:

16 AUGUST 2001

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. On a date in December 2000, which cannot be identified precisely, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Minister”) made a decision pursuant to s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) to cancel the appellant’s visa. As a result of the Minister’s decision, the appellant became an “unlawful non‑citizen” and was taken into immigration detention pending his removal from Australia. The decision of the Minister was a “judicially‑reviewable decision”: s 475(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant applied to the Court pursuant to Pt 8 of the Act to review the decision of the Minister. On 3 May 2001, Heerey J dismissed that application and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

  2. The following brief background leading up to the Minister’s decision is taken from his Honour’s reasons for judgment. The appellant was born in England on 18 December 1956 and came to Australia with his parents in about 1960. He has lived in Australia ever since. A substantial part of his life since the age of 13 has been spent in gaol, mainly for drug related offences. On 4 October 2000, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs notified the appellant of its intention to consider cancellation of his visa under s 501(2) of the Act but noted that the decision would be made personally by the Minister. His Honour’s reasons for judgment analysed in some detail the decision document upon which the Minister’s decision was based and noted that the decision that:

    “Stephen John Adams does not pass the character test,…

Continue reading Adams v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Adams v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1138
Case
[2001] FCA 1138
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Adams v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the appellant sought to challenge the Minister's decision to cancel their visa under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act. The respondent argued that the appellant's conduct amounted to a serious breach of Australian community standards, justifying the visa cancellation. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legality and proportionality of the visa cancellation in light of the appellant's conduct.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the appellant's visa was lawful and proportionate, given the nature and seriousness of the appellant's conduct. The court had to consider whether the Minister's decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and whether the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the appellant's conduct. Furthermore, the court examined the extent to which the Minister's decision was reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

The court held that the Minister's decision was not based on an erroneous interpretation of the statutory provisions and that the penalty of visa cancellation was proportionate to the appellant's conduct, which constituted a serious breach of community standards. The court found that the Minister had properly exercised his discretion under the Act and that the decision was not irrational or arbitrary. The appellant's argument that the Minister had failed to consider relevant factors was rejected, as the court found that all pertinent considerations had been taken into account. Consequently, the court dismissed the appellant's motion and ordered that they pay the respondent's costs of the motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellant’s motion filed on 13 August 2001 be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the motion.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.