HENRY & HANCOCK

Henry and Hancock (the applicants) sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The applicants, who were asylum seekers, had their applications for protection visas refused. They challenged the lawfulness of the delegate's decision to refuse their applications, arguing that the delegate failed to consider relevant material and that the decision was otherwise affected by jurisdictional error.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the delegate of the Minister had properly considered all the information provided by the applicants when assessing their claims for protection visas. Specifically, the applicants contended that the delegate overlooked or failed to give adequate weight to certain documentary evidence and personal statements that supported their claims of persecution. The court was required to determine if this alleged failure constituted a jurisdictional error, thereby rendering the delegate's decision invalid.

Brown J found that the delegate's assessment had indeed failed to adequately address significant portions of the material submitted by the applicants. The judge reasoned that a failure to consider relevant evidence, particularly when that evidence directly bore upon the grounds for seeking protection, amounted to a failure to exercise the power conferred by the relevant legislation. This failure to properly consider the evidence was determined to be a jurisdictional error. Consequently, the delegate's decision was quashed.