DCM20 v Secretary, Department of Home Affairs

DCM20 sought judicial review of a decision by the Department of Home Affairs, which declined to refer their repeated request for ministerial intervention under section 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to the Minister. The decision was made by an Assistant Director, who exercised a non-statutory executive power, providing brief reasons in accordance with Ministerial guidelines. The applicant argued that the Assistant Director's decision was legally unreasonable and thus subject to judicial review, relying on the principles established in Jabbour v Secretary, Department of Home Affairs (2019) 269 FCR 438. The Minister intervened, asserting that Jabbour was wrongly decided. The court had to determine the validity of the Assistant Director's decision, the principles governing the drawing of inferences when no statutory obligation to provide reasons exists, and the correctness of the Minister's assertion regarding the Jabbour decision.

The court considered the principles for judicial review when a decision-maker is not statutorily required to provide reasons, particularly in the context of ministerial intervention requests. It assessed whether the Assistant Director's decision was legally unreasonable, given the lack of statutory obligation to provide reasons. The court acknowledged the Minister's submission that Jabbour was wrongly decided, but it ultimately concluded that the Assistant Director's decision was not legally unreasonable. The court found that the Assistant Director's brief reasons, while not comprehensive, were sufficient in light of the Ministerial guidelines and the nature of the request.

Based on its analysis, the court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Assistant Director's decision to decline referral of the repeated request for ministerial intervention was not legally unreasonable. The court also found that Jabbour did not apply as a binding precedent, given the Minister's submission that it was wrongly decided. Consequently, the applicant's argument failed, and the application was dismissed. The court ordered that the applicant pay the Department's costs as agreed or assessed, in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.