Long v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

In the case of Long v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the appellant, a British subject born in the United Kingdom, challenged the decision of the Minister for Immigration to cancel his visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The appellant argued that the Minister had erred in exercising his discretion under section 501(2) of the Act by not considering the best interests of his children as a relevant factor. He also contended that the Minister failed to afford him natural justice by not notifying him that the best interests of his children would not be taken into account. The case was brought to the court on appeal after the primary judge dismissed the appellant’s application for review.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister’s decision to cancel the appellant’s visa was legally sound, particularly in light of the appellant’s argument that the Minister failed to consider relevant factors and did not provide natural justice. The court had to determine if the Minister's decision to cancel the appellant's visa was lawful and if it complied with the statutory and constitutional requirements.

The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was flawed because it did not consider the best interests of the appellant’s children, which is a relevant factor under the Migration Act. The court held that this constituted a failure to take into account a relevant consideration, which is a ground for judicial review. Additionally, the court held that the Minister did not accord the appellant natural justice by not notifying him that the best interests of his children would not be taken into account. The court concluded that the Minister’s failure to consider these factors amounted to a jurisdictional error. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the Minister's decision to cancel the visa, and prohibited the Minister from enforcing that decision. The court also restrained the Minister from detaining or removing the appellant based on that decision. The matters of declaratory relief and costs were reserved for further consideration.