Guo and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

Case

[2016] AATA 901

27 September 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Guo and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2016] AATA 901 [2016] AATA 901 27 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an objection by an applicant to the tender of a witness's statement. The applicant argued that the dissemination of this statement was in breach of the *New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985* (NSW). The AAT noted that the witness held a delegation under s 13(a) of the *New South Wales Crime Commission Act 2012* (NSW), and that the dissemination was properly authorised under that section, interpreting "intelligence" in its ordinary meaning. The Tribunal held that the statutory construction of the Crime Commission's power to authorise dissemination under s 13(a) was not limited to materials capable of disclosure under s 10(1)(c) of the Act.

The AAT was required to determine whether s 80(3) of the *New South Wales Crime Commission Act 2012* (NSW) barred the tender of a statement made voluntarily, and whether the Tribunal had a discretion to admit evidence even if it was obtained improperly or illegally. The Tribunal considered the principles governing the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence under the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) and its state counterpart, noting that the AAT is not bound by these provisions.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the AAT is not bound by the *Evidence Act*, any exclusion of otherwise probative evidence must be decided on a principled basis, considering the AAT's review jurisdiction. The AAT stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker and can exercise all their powers and discretions. The Tribunal found no reason why the Minister or delegates would not be entitled to consider information volunteered by NSW law enforcement agencies relevant to their powers. Applying these principles, the Tribunal concluded that it would be wrong to suggest the AAT is obliged to exclude probative evidence, unless it was obtained as a result of conscious maladministration. The Tribunal found no factor of impropriety or unfairness in this case, and therefore overruled the applicant's objections.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

  • Immigration

Legal Concepts

  • Statutory Construction

  • Judicial Review

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Jurisdiction

  • Remedies