Daguio, B. v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs

In the case of Daguio v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs, the applicant, a prohibited non-citizen, sought judicial review of a deportation order made by the Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs. The applicant argued that the Minister's decision to deport him was flawed due to the failure to separately consider whether to grant him a temporary entry permit before making the deportation order, and that this failure denied him natural justice. The applicant further contended that the Minister failed to take into account a relevant consideration by not specifying the country of destination in the deportation order.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision to deport the applicant was vitiated by the failure to separately consider whether to grant a temporary entry permit, and whether this failure denied the applicant natural justice. Additionally, the court needed to examine if the Minister failed to take into account a relevant consideration by not stating the country of destination in the deportation order.

The court found that the Minister's failure to separately consider whether to grant a temporary entry permit did not vitiate the decision to deport the applicant, as the decision to deport was independent of the decision to grant a temporary entry permit. The court held that the applicant was not denied natural justice, as he had the opportunity to make representations to the Minister regarding the deportation order. Furthermore, the court concluded that the failure to specify the country of destination in the deportation order did not render the order invalid, as the Minister was not required to do so.

Accordingly, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the respondent's costs were taxed and then paid by the applicant. The orders were settled and entered in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.