Chen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

In the Federal Court of Australia, Justice Egan considered an application by Mr. Chen for review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Mr. Chen sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision, alleging that the Tribunal may not have approached its task with an impartial mind and that the decision was irrational or unreasonable.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal had not brought an impartial mind to the resolution of the questions before it, as per the apprehended bias principle established in *Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy*. This involved assessing specific allegations of the Tribunal's conduct during the hearing, including frequent interruptions, apparent closed-mindedness, scornfulness, and refusal to allow an interpreter. A secondary issue concerned whether the Tribunal's decision was irrational or unreasonable, specifically in relation to its findings on Mr. Chen's criminal convictions.

Justice Egan applied the apprehended bias principle, which requires that justice be both done and seen to be done. The Court listened to audio recordings of the Tribunal hearing, reviewed transcripts, and considered a table detailing the applicant's allegations of bias and the respondent's responses. The Court also referred to *SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship*, which affirmed that while occasional displays of impatience or rudeness may not, of themselves, establish disqualifying bias, they are relevant to the factual matrix to be considered. The Court's reasoning focused on whether the Tribunal's conduct, as evidenced by the audio and transcript, would lead a reasonable observer to apprehend bias, and whether the factual premises for the Tribunal's decision were demonstrably irrational.