Haoucher, M.M. v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs

[1987] FCA 395

IMMIGRATION - ~udlclal revlew - clalm for stay or lnterlocutory

in]unction - Lebanese natlonal - resldent of Australla - crimlnal

hlstory - deportatlon order - appeal to Admlnlstratlve Appeals

Tribunal - recomrnendatlon to revoke deportatlon order - Mlnlster

refuslng to accept recommendatlon - appllcant not heard - Australla's Crlmlnal Deportatlon Pollcy - exceptlonal and unusual case - arguable case of breach of rules of natural 7ustlce - deportatlon stayed.

Admlnlstratlve Declslons (Judlclal Revlew) Act 1977 s.15

Federal Court of Australla Act s.23

Australia's Criminal Deportatlon Pollcy paras. 3 and 4

Barbaro v Mlnlster for Immigratlon	and Ethnlc Affairs (1982)	46
ALR 123

Minister for Immlgratlon and Ethnlc Affalrs v	Pochl (1981) 36 ALR
5 6 1

MAJED MAHMOUD HAOUCHER V THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR IMMIGRATION AND

ETHNIC AFFAIRS NO. WAG 76 OF 1987

FRENCH J.

PERTH

23 JULY 1987

J U D G E MAKIKG ORDEF: FRfPICtI J .

D A T E OF O P D E R : 2 3 J1JT.Y 1 9 8 7

WHFRE I-1ADF: Pt-nTF

T H E COURT O R D E R S ~ ~ :- 4 7

l. T h e r e s p o n d e n t he restralned untll the hcarlng ?ntl

deterrrlnatlon oE thls appllcatlon or further order Erom

taking any steps to deport the appllcant frrm Australia.

2. Costs of the claim For lnterlocutory relleE be l n the cause.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders 1s dealt with

in Order 36 oE the Federal Court R u l e s .

I Y TtIF FEDERAL COURT	)
OF AUSTRALIA	)

WESTERN AUSTRALIA )

DISTRICT REGISTRY )

GENERAL D I V I S I O N ) N O . WAG 76 of 1987

B E T W E E N : M A J E D MAHMOUP PAOlJCtlEl?

A p p l i c a n t

and

THE MINISTER O F STAT E FOR

IMMIGRATION A X D ETHNIC AFFAIRS

R e s p o n d e n t

CORAM:	FRENCH J .
23 J u l y 1 9 8 7

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

T h i s i s a n u r g e n t c l a i m f o r i n t e r l o c u t o r y r e l i e f t o

r e s t r a i n t h e r e s p o n d e n t f r o m g i v i n g e f f e c t t o a d e p o r t a t i o n o r d e r

u n t i l t h e	h e a r i n g	of	a	s u b s t a n t i v e	a p p l i c a t i o n	for	~ u d i c i a l
r ev iew.

T h e a p p l i c a n t is a 32 y e a r o l d L e b a n e s e n a t i o n a l . He

m i g r a t e d t o A u s t r a l i a o n 1 F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 7 . He h a s b e e n r e s i d e n t

h e r e s i n c e t h a t time, s a v e f o r a p e r i o d o f 12 m o n t h s b e t w e e n

J a n u a r y 1 9 7 8 a n d J a n u a r y 1 9 7 9 w h e n h e r e t u r n e d t o L e b a n o n t o

m a r r y , a n d a f u r t h e r p e r i o d o f one m o n t h i n 1980 when he wen t back

to o b t a i n a d i v o r c e .

He h a s a n o t i n s l g n i f i c a n t c r i m i n a l r e c o r d i n A u s t r a l i a .

2 .

On 6 J a n u a r y 1 9 7 8 h e w a s c o n v l c t e c ! o f h e l n q o n t h e

premises of a common gamlng h o u s e a n d f i n e d .

On 28 A u g u s t 1 9 8 0 h e was c o n v l c t e d O E a s s a u l t a r l s l n q

o u t of a k n l f e a t t a c k on h l s b r o t h e r G a l e p a n d was sentenccd t o a

term o f l m p r l s o n m e n t f o r 2 m o n t h s .

On 11 a n d 2 9 J u n e 1 9 8 2 h e w a s c o n v l c t e d of d l s o r d e r l v

c o n d u c t a n d f l n e d $ 2 0 . 0 0 I n e a c h case .

O n 7 S e p t e m b e r 1 9 8 2 h e was c o n v l c t e d of n r o v l d l n g a

f a l s e name t o p o l l c e a n d was f i n e d $ 1 0 . 0 0 .

On 30 S e p t e m b e r 1 9 8 2 h e was c o n v l c t e d o f a s s a u l t

o c c a s i o n i n g b o d l l y h a r m . T h i s arose o u t of a n a s s a u l t u p o n h l s

d e f a c t o w l f e I n w h l c h h e s t r u c k h e r on t h e h e a d w l t h a t i n . The

r e s u l t l n q wound r e q u l r e d s t l t c h e s t o b e I n s e r t e d .

He was p l a c e d on p r o b a t i o n for 1 2 m o n t h s and o r d e r e d t o

d o 1 2 0 h o u r s c o m m u n i t y s e r v i c e w o r k .

On 2 8 F e b r u a r y 1 9 8 3 h e was c o n v l c t e d o f t h e o f f e n c e of

w i l f u l d a m a q e a n d f i n e d $ 2 0 0 . 0 0 .

O n 29 May 1 9 8 5 h e p l e a d e d g u l l t y l n t h e Dlstrlct C o u r t

a t P e r t h t o t h e o f f e n c e o f p o s s e s s i o n o f c a n n a b i s r e s l n w l t h

i n t e n t t o s e l l o r s u p p l y l t t o a n o t h e r .

3.

He was sentenced to a term of 5 vears lrnprlsonment wlth a mlnlmum of 2 1 / 2 years before he would be ellglble for parole.

On appeal thls was reduced to 3 years wlth an 18 month

minlnum.

tle was released from prlson on 18 Octoher 1986.

A declslon to deport the anpllcant had Seen made on 19

Auqust 1986 under s.12 of the Mlgratlon Act 1958. He appealed

agalnst that declslon to the Admlnlstratlve Appeals Tribunal.

On 29 January 1987 Deputy Presldent Nlcholson ordered

that the declslon be remltted respondent to he for

reconslderatlon In accordance wlth the Trlbunal's recommendatlon

that the deportatlon order be revoked.

The appllcant next heard of the matter on 7 July 1987

when he received a letter dated 1 July 1987 from the Department of

Immigration and Ethnlc Affalrs advlslng him that the respondent

had decided not to accept the recommendatlon. Consequently, he was informed, it was proposed to proceed with the deportatlon order.

The appllcant has, it 1s sald, been qlven no opportunlty to be heard on the questlon of the disposltlon of the 'Irlbunal's recommendatlon.

4 .

He conplains that he has been denied natural lustice and

seeks ~udicial review of the Minister's decision.

H1s application also raises unspecified non-observance

of procedures required by law to be observed and improper exercise

of the power conferred by the Migration Act. Nothing that was not

of a purely speculative nature was advanced in support of these

latter grounds and in my opinion, no relief could be qranted in

relation to them on present materials.

The decision by the Minister to refuse to accept the

recommendatlon of the Tribunal is an unusual one.

So much is recognised by the Ministerial Statement on Australian Criminal Deportation Policy made in the Parliament by

the then Minister, the Honourable Stewart West, on 4 May 1983.

In particular paragraphs 3 and 4 of that Policy are

apt :-

" 3 .	A person who has come within the criminal deportation liability has a right to a decislon on
hls/her case as soon as possible after sentencing
and a right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal against a declslon that he/she be
deported.
4 .	It is the policy of the Australian Government that
recommendatlons of the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal should be overturned by the Minister only
in exceptional circumstances and only when strong
evidence can be produced to lustify his decision.
Furthermore, it is the policy of the Government that, when the Minlster decides to deport a person

5.

contrary to a reconrnendatlon cf the Trl?unal, the

Minister wlll table In the I-'i?rl~am=nt at the flrst

opportunlty a staterent o f h l ? / b c L 1-easons Eor

doing so."

The exceptional nature of the 3cesent CAS^ 1s relnforced by tt-e observation of Srnlthers J. ln Barbarc, v E-llnlster for Immlgratlon and Ethnlc Affalrs (1982) 4 6 A L R 123 at 130 where hls Honour noted that In the hlstory of tt,e adTlnlstratlon of the Act

the Minister had on only two ccaslons departed from the

Tribunal's recommendatlon.

Counsel for the respondent was unable to lnEorm me

whether there had been any more such cases since 1982.

On the authorlty of the Rarbaro declslon it 1s plaln

that there 1s at least a case to argue the exlstence of an

entitlement on the part O E a prospectlve deportee to be heard before a declslon 1s made departlng from a recommendatlon of the

Tribunal that a deportatlon order be revoked.

Smithers J., after cltlnq the decislon of the Hlqh Court

in Mlnlster for Immigratlon and Ethnlc Affalrs	v Pochl (1981) 36
ALR 561, said at 130 in the Barbaro 1udqment:-

"It appears, therefore, that there 1s a duty In the

Mlnlster arlslnq out of the fact that the Trlbunal has

made a particular recommendatlon. He must proceed "In

the llght" of It, he must "have reqard" to It. It is

not to be thought that thls duty 1s not a real one. It

is not to be thought that Parllament dld not Intend that

the recommendatlon of the Tribunal should be meanlngful.

6 .

T h e T r l b u n a l 1s of h l g h s t a t u s , t h e r e v l e w 1s I n t e n < l e d

t o b e t h o r o u q h a n d c u a s l - ~ u d l c l a l , a n d t h e words of t h e

S c h e d u l e h a v e a p o s l t i v e i m p o r t . I f 1ts reco rnmenda t lon

i s t o b e m e a n l n q f u l , a n d l € t h e r e 1s a d u t y o n t h e

Minis te r t o t r e a t 1t a s a m e a n l n g f u l r e c o r n m e n ? a t l o n ,

t h e n , when I t 1s made, some b e n e f l t m u s t a c c r u e t o t h e

p e r s o n i n r e s p e c t O E whom i t 1s made . T h e Min l s tP r 1s

n o t b o u n d t o a d o p t a l l t h e f l n d l n q s of f a c t o f t h e

T r i b u n a l o r t o q l v e t o l n f e r e n c e s of f a c t t h e sane

w e i g h t a n d l r e c t l o n a s was q l v e n t o t h e m b y t h e

T r i b u n a l . B u t l f t h e r e c o m m e n d a t l o n 1s t o be m e a n l n f l f u l

t h e n i t would seem t h a t h e l e a s t t h a t c a n be s a i d 1s

t h a t where those f l n d l n g s of f a c t a n d I n f e r e n c e s a r e t o

be d e p a r t e d from, t h e p e r s o n c o n c e r n e d s h o u l d be q l v e n

o p p o r t u n l t y t h e t o m a k e r e p r e s e n t a t l o n s . Who re

q u e s t i o n s of c r e d l b l l l t y a r e l n v o l v e d a p r o c e d u r e

a p p r o p r l a t e t h e r e t o w o u l d b e e s s e n t l a l . S u c h q u e s t l o n s

c a n n o t b e d e c i d e d b y a n y t r i b u n a l w i t h o u t s e e i n q a n d

h e a r i n g t h e p e r s o n w h o s e c r ed l t 1s i n i ssue."

C o u n s e l for t h e respondent s u b m i t s t h a t a s t h e Mlnlster

h a s a s y e t q l v e n n o reasons f o r h i s d e c l s l o n , l t c a n n o t b e s a l d

t h a t h e h a s made a n v f l n d l n g s of f a c t l n c o n s l s t e n t w l t h those of

t h e T r i b u n a l n o r d r a w n d l f f e r e n t I n f e r e n c e s fron f a c t s f o u n d . Nor

c a n 1t b e	s a l d	t h a t	h i s d e c i s l o n	h a s	t u r n e d	o n	q u e s t i o n s of
c r e d i t .

T h a t may b e so , b u t I am p r e p a r e d t o a c c e p t t h a t t he re

1s a n a r g u a b l e case t h a t t h e r l g h t t o b e h e a r d I n r e l a t l o n t o a

p r o p o s e d e p a r t u r e f r o m a reco rnmenda t lon of t h e A d m l n l s t r a t l v e

A p p e a l s T r i b u n a l is n o t l l m l t e d t o t h e a b o v e c l t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s .

I t 1s a n e x c e p t l o n a l a n d u n u s u a l case a n d l n v o l v e s a d e c l s i o n

t h a t , w l t h o u t h e a r i n g f r o m t h e a p p l l c a n t , h a s d e f e a t e d w h a t

S m i t h e r s J . d e s c r i b e d a s l ' . . . a r e a l a n d l e g l t l m a t e x p e c t a t l o n

t h a t t h e M i n i s t e r w o u l d a c t a c c o r d a n c e I n w l t h t h e

r eco rnmenda t lon" .

I .

The Minlster b a ? been pt-er'areci to give no undertakinq to hold his hand fot anv ;X?KIO? nendirq the arqument of the application O K even to allow f u l l arqument on the question o f interlocutory relief.

The executlon O F tke deportation order awaits the

arrlval of travel documcnts from Lebanese authorities and may	he
Imminent.

The matter cane on before me as a matter of urgency in

the early eveninq of 2 2 J u l y 1987. I made an interim order

restralning the respondent fron denorting the applicant u n t ~ l

midday on 2 3 July so that I miqht consider my decisiqn on the stay

overnight. In m y opinion, the balance of convenience plainly

favours the applicant. The order I make IS, I think, able to be made under s.15 of the Admlnlstratlve Decisions (Judicial Review)

-	Act and if that section be inapplicable then s . 2 3 of the Federal
Court of Australia Act supplies the necessarv powers.

The orders I propose are as follows:-

1. The Respondent be restrained until the he arlnq and

determlnatlon of this application or furt her order from taking any steps to^ deport the applicant from Australla.

2 . Costs of the claim €OK interlocutory relief be In the cause.

I certify that thls and the preceding

six (6) pages are a true copy of the

Reasons for Judqment herein of His

Honour M r Justice French.

Associate: -

R .

Counsel :

instructed by Messrs. Flazza McCallum S Fohlnson

. for the applicant: FIT S. Owen-Conway

instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor	. €or the respondent: MlsS C. Francas
Date of Hearinq:	22 July 1987

Date of Judqment: 23 July 1987