Hassan v MIMA & Anor

The applicants, Mr Hassan and Mr Al-Jamil, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (MIMA) and the second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). The applicants, who were citizens of Iraq, claimed to be refugees and sought protection in Australia. Their applications for protection visas were refused by the Minister, and subsequently, the RRT affirmed these decisions. The applicants challenged the lawfulness of the RRT's decisions.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the RRT had failed to provide the applicants with procedural fairness. Specifically, the applicants contended that the RRT had failed to give them adequate notice of adverse information that was to be relied upon in making its decision, and that they were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to this information. This failure, they argued, rendered the RRT's decisions invalid.

Kirby and Callinan JJ, in separate judgments, both found that the RRT had breached its duty to provide procedural fairness. Their Honours held that the RRT had relied on adverse information concerning the applicants' claims that had not been disclosed to them, thereby preventing them from adequately responding to the material that formed the basis of the adverse findings. The Court affirmed the principle that a decision-maker must provide a party with notice of adverse information and an opportunity to be heard in relation to that information before making a decision that adversely affects the party's interests.

The High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the decisions of the RRT, and remitted the applications for protection visas to the RRT for redetermination according to law.