Jones and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an interlocutory application for an extension of time to seek review of a decision made on 9 July 2018 by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to revoke the Applicant's Australian citizenship. The Applicant, who was born in the United Kingdom, migrated to Australia in 1966 and was granted Australian citizenship in 1988. He was convicted in 2003 of five counts of indecent dealing and indecent assault involving children, for which he served a two-and-a-half-year sentence. The Minister's decision to revoke citizenship was made approximately 15 years after the conviction. The Applicant was represented by legal counsel, while the Respondent was represented by the Australian Government Solicitor. The Applicant, who was in immigration detention, did not appear at the hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant an extension of time for the Applicant to apply for a review of the 2018 decision to revoke his Australian citizenship. This decision had been made under section 34(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth). The Applicant had failed to lodge his application for review within the prescribed 28-day period following notification of the revocation. The Tribunal was required to consider the merits of the application, the potential for a miscarriage of justice, and the overall fairness to the Applicant in determining whether to grant the extension.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Applicant's reasons for the delay, including his understanding that the revocation was a further punishment and his gratitude for being granted an ex-citizen visa, were significant factors. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was not informed that his ex-citizen visa could be cancelled on character grounds, a cancellation that subsequently occurred. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's circumstances, including the significant delay in the revocation decision relative to his conviction, and the subsequent cancellation of his visa without his knowledge of that further risk, weighed heavily in his favour. The Tribunal concluded that it was arguable that the Ministerial revocation discretion may have miscarried, potentially being for purposes of retribution, denunciation, or deterrence.

The Tribunal granted the application for an extension of time.