Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1995
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No A 2007/00033
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re JONATHAN KAYE Applicant
And
MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr A Sweidan, Senior Member Date29 November 2007
PlacePerth
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. ..........(Sgd. A Sweidan)......................
Senior Member
(d)On 7 February 2007, the respondent decided to:
(i)cancel the applicant's passport in accordance with s 22(2)(d) of the Australian Passports Act; and
(ii)refuse to issue a subsequent passport to the applicant under s14 (2) of that Act.
The legislative scheme
(i) The decision to cancel or refuse a passport
3. The principal object of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (the Act) is to provide for the issue and administration of Australian passports, to be used as evidence of identity and citizenship by Australian citizens who are travelling internationally: s 3.
4. Part 2 of the Act deals with the issue of Australian travel documents, including Australian passports. By s 7,
(1) An Australian citizen is entitled, on application to the Minister, to be issued with an Australian passport by the Minister.
(2) An Australian citizen’s entitlement to be issued with an Australian passport is affected by section 8 (relating to satisfaction as to identity) and by Division 2.”
5. These proceedings relate to the application of Division 2 of the Act and in particular Subdivision B thereof under which the Minister may refuse to issue an Australian passport for reasons relating to law enforcement and security. In each case, under that subdivision, the power of the Minister to cancel or to refuse to issue an Australian passport arises on a “refusal/cancellation request” by a competent authority. A competent authority is defined in each of ss 12, 13 and 14 for the purposes of each section.
6.By s 14:
(1)If a competent authority suspects on reasonable grounds that:
(a)if an Australian passport were issued to a person, the person would be likely to engage in conduct that:
(i)might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country; or
(ii)might endanger the health or physical safety of other persons (whether in Australia or a foreign country); or
(iii)might interfere with the rights or freedoms of other persons (whether in Australia or a foreign country) set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; or
(iv)might constitute an indictable offence against this Act; or
(v)might constitute an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth, being an offence specified in a Minister’s determination; and
(b)the person should be refused an Australian passport in order to prevent the person from engaging in the conduct;
the competent authority may make a refusal/cancellation request in relation to the person.
(2)If a competent authority makes a request under subsection (1), the Minister may refuse to issue the person an Australian passport.
(3)In this section:
competent authority:
(a)in relation to a circumstance mentioned in subsection (1) that relates to Australia, means:
(i)a person who has…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Kaye and Minister for Foreign Affairs and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] AATA 1995
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence and submissions from both Kaye and the Minister, and considered the relevant legislative framework and policy guidance. The court found that the Minister had acted within his statutory powers and that the decision to cancel Kaye’s passport was reasonable and lawful. The court noted that Kaye’s criminal history, including his previous arrest and deportation from Thailand, was relevant to the Minister’s decision and supported the conclusion that cancelling Kaye’s passport was in the national interest. The court also found that the Minister had properly considered the relevant policy guidance and had exercised his discretion in a manner that was consistent with the law.
The court rejected Kaye’s arguments that the decision was unjust and disproportionate, and found that the Minister had acted reasonably and in accordance with the law. The court held that the Minister’s decision to cancel Kaye’s passport was lawful, reasonable, and justified, and that the Tribunal was not satisfied that the decision should be set aside. The court affirmed the decision to cancel Kaye’s passport, and dismissed Kaye’s application for review.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.