Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, brought by the Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs against Mrs. Teoh. The core dispute revolved around whether Australia's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child created a legitimate expectation that administrative decisions affecting children would be made in accordance with the Convention's principles, and if so, whether this expectation altered the requirements of procedural fairness under Australian law.

The legal issues before the Court were twofold. Firstly, it was to be determined whether the mere ratification of the Convention by Australia gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of parents and children whose interests were affected by Commonwealth actions or decisions concerning children, that such actions or decisions would be conducted or made having regard to, and consistently with, the Convention's principles. Secondly, if such a legitimate expectation arose, the Court was required to consider whether this expectation modified the existing requirements of procedural fairness under the general law.

The applicant argued that the approach of the Full Court below was contrary to the decision of the House of Lords in *Brind*, which held that there was no presumption in domestic law that courts would review administrative discretion to ensure conformity with unincorporated treaties. The applicant contended that if ratification alone created such an expectation, it would effectively lead to the enforcement of international law in domestic courts without legislative incorporation, which was not authorised. Furthermore, the applicant submitted that the Chief Justice erred in holding that the decision-maker was bound to make further inquiries into the facts regarding the breakup of the family unit, and that the decision-maker had not properly considered this matter when refusing resident status. The applicant maintained that, absent the Convention's impact, the decision-maker had given proper consideration to the effect of a deportation order on the respondent's family and was not obliged to make further inquiries.