KFDJ and Director General of Security

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Australian passport, based on an adverse security assessment made by the Director-General of Security. The applicant, KFDJ, represented himself and challenged the reliability and relevance of evidence presented by the Director-General, which included classified ASIO materials and evidence from a witness using an assumed name, 'John Ward'. The Tribunal was required to prepare both open and closed reasons for its decision, balancing the need for transparency with the protection of sensitive national security information.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine the correctness and justification of the information and opinions contained within the adverse security assessment, and whether the statutory requirements and limitations under the *Passports Act* and the *ASIO Act* had been met. This involved evaluating the reliability of evidence presented by both parties, including classified ASIO documents, the testimony of Mr Ward, and KFDJ's own evidence, while also considering challenges based on hearsay and relevance. The Tribunal also had to determine if the recommendation for cancellation of KFDJ's passport was justified and reasonably relevant to the requirements of security.

The Tribunal reasoned that while some of Mr Ward's evidence had the character of hearsay or opinion, aspects drawn from his direct knowledge of ASIO's role and procedures were relevant and assisted in understanding the documentary evidence. The Tribunal accepted that certain unclassified materials, including media articles and threat assessments, were relevant to understanding the broader context of security concerns, such as right-wing extremism and foreign fighters. On balance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the opinions expressed in the security assessment were correct and justified, and that the statutory requirements had been met.

The Tribunal varied the adverse security assessment by deleting the words "or a foreign country" from specific clauses within the Assessment and the Grounds. Subject to these variations, the Tribunal found the information, opinions, advice, and recommendations in the assessment to be correct, reasonable, justified, and relevant to the requirements of security. The decision on KFDJ's application for review of the passport cancellation would be made after further submissions and consideration of any additional relevant evidence.