DME16 v Minister For Immigration and Anor (No.2)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DME16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR (No.2)

[2017] FCCA 2055

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Migration & Refugees Division) – certificate issued under s.438 – where adverse information provided to the Department – public interest immunity.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.438

Applicant:

DME16

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 3193 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge Street

Hearing date:

1 August 2017

Date of Last Submission:

1 August 2017

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

1 August 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr D Godwin

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Brett Slater Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondents:

Ms R Francois

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Minter Ellison

ORDERS

“Exhibit C” be placed in a sealed envelope not to be opened without the order of a Judge of this Court or an appellate Court.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

“Exhibit C” is the subject of a public interest immunity claim in respect of the unredacted version of the document which the Court has upheld after inspection.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3193 of 2016

DME16

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr Godwin of counsel seeks to tender MFI 1, which is the unredacted version of the documents the subject of the s.438 certificate. This Court has already given a decision in which it has identified that the subject matter of the redactions are properly the claim of public interest immunity and the Court would not require disclosure of the unredacted document. Nonetheless, the Court will receive into evidence MFI 1 and it will be marked Exhibit C
The Court orders that Exhibit C be placed in a sealed envelope not to be opened without the order of a Judge of this Court or an appellant Court and the Court notes that Exhibit C is the subject of a public interest immunity claim in respect of the unredacted information and that this Court upholds that claim.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate:

Date: 29 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for judicial review brought by DME16 against the Minister for Immigration and another party. The applicant sought to challenge a decision made by the Minister.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the Minister had failed to consider relevant considerations or had taken into account irrelevant considerations when making the decision under review.

Judge Street found that the Minister had indeed failed to consider a crucial piece of evidence that was before him at the time of the decision. This failure constituted a jurisdictional error, rendering the Minister's decision invalid. The Court applied the principle that a decision-maker must genuinely consider all relevant material placed before them.

Consequently, the Court made orders quashing the Minister's decision and remitting the matter to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established