Kaufman v Chief Commissioner of Police

In the case of Kaufman v Chief Commissioner of Police, the applicant, a registered sex offender, sought judicial review of a decision by the Chief Commissioner of Police to deny his application for permission to travel to Vietnam. The applicant, who had previously been convicted of possessing and accessing child pornography, was subject to reporting obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic). The new restrictions imposed by the Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Act 2017 (Cth) required the applicant to obtain permission from a competent authority to travel overseas. The applicant's application for permission to travel was denied, and he sought judicial review of that decision.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the decision-maker had considered irrelevant factors, whether the decision was unreasonable, and whether the applicant had been denied natural justice. The court found that the decision-maker had properly considered relevant factors, including the applicant's previous offending and the status of Vietnam as a tier 2 country. The court also found that the decision was not unreasonable and that the applicant had not been denied natural justice. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the decision was based on irrelevant considerations and held that the decision was consistent with the purpose of the legislation, which was to protect vulnerable children from sexual abuse by registered sex offenders.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent. The court held that the decision-maker had exercised their discretion in a manner consistent with the legislative purpose and that there was no legal error that would justify setting aside the decision. The court also noted that the applicant had substantially succeeded in his original application, as the orders made on 29 May 2019 provided him with relief similar to that which might be provided by a writ of certiorari. However, the court held that costs should follow the event and awarded costs to the Commissioner to be assessed from the date of the Second Determination.