CJR19 v Minister for Immigration

[2020] FCCA 495

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CJR19 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2020] FCCA 495

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Claim for public interest immunity pursuant to s 438 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether disclosure of redacted material would disclose confidential processes critical to the proper operation of the Act and/or disclose the identity of informants – claim for public interest immunity upheld.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.438

Applicant: CJR19

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1483 of 2019

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 6 March 2020

Date of Last Submission: 6 March 2020

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 6 March 2020

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr G Johnson

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The claim for public interest immunity in respect of the redactions concerning the information the subject of the two s 438 certificates is upheld.

DATE OF ORDER: 6 March 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1483 of 2019

CJR19

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTRUAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In light of the evidence by Michael Minns, the Court upholds the claim for public interest immunity in respect of the redactions the subject of the two Section 438 certificates.

2. The Court accepts the evidence that disclosure of the redacted material would disclose confidential processes critical to the proper operation of the Migration Act1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) and/or disclose the identity of informants, that the claim for public interest immunity is properly made out, and that, on a balancing exercise, the claim for public interest immunity outweighs any significance of the material in this case and its disclosure.

3. In that regard, the applicant accepted that he provided a false identity in his first application for a Protection visa, and the documents the subject of the two certificates concern the applicant’s earlier claimed false identity. The Court has also taken into account that the existence of the certificates was disclosed to the applicant in the course of the hearing before the Tribunal, and at the Tribunal hearing the applicant accepted that he had provided a false identity in his first visa application.  

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the transcript of the published oral reasons for judgement of Judge Street delivered in open Court on 6 March 2020 and the parties were provided sealed copies of the Court’s orders.

Associate: 

Date: 1 May 2020