Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Batey

The case before the court involved the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and a respondent, Batey. The dispute centered around the Minister's decision to deport Batey, despite a recommendation by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against deportation. The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was "manifestly unreasonable," and if the trial judge had erred in concluding that the exercise of power was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have exercised it.

The primary legal issue was the standard of review applicable to the Minister's decision not to follow the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's recommendation. The court had to determine the appropriate legal standard and whether the Minister's decision was "manifestly unreasonable." This involved examining the relevant factors, including the risk of recidivism, and understanding the meaning of a "real" risk in this context.

The court found that the trial judge had applied an incorrect legal standard in reviewing the Minister's decision. The court held that the appropriate standard was whether the Minister's decision was "manifestly unreasonable," and not whether it was "so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have exercised the power." The court concluded that the trial judge had erred in law, and the Minister's decision was not "manifestly unreasonable." Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders appealed from were set aside. The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings appealed from.