Perchine & Anor, Ex parte - Re MIMA

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application for writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and an injunction. The applicants, Andrei and Ekaterina Perchine, sought these remedies against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Giles Short (sitting as the Refugee Review Tribunal), and John Godfrey (acting Principal Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal). The applicants were represented by Mr. C.D. Jackson, and the first respondent by Mr. M.A. Wigney. The second and third respondents indicated they would not be represented and would submit to the Court's order, save as to costs.

The central legal issues before the Court revolved around allegations of a denial of natural justice and apprehended bias on the part of the Refugee Review Tribunal. Specifically, the applicants contended that the Tribunal made findings of fact during the investigatory stage, evidenced by sarcastic remarks and definitive statements of fabrication, which gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias during the decision-making stage. The Court also considered whether the Tribunal acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction by making findings that no reasonable tribunal should have made, particularly in relation to the applicant's account of advice received from a policeman and the implications of Finland being a signatory to the Refugees Convention. Furthermore, the Court examined the appropriateness of the relief sought, questioning how prohibition could be directed to the Minister and how an injunction could be issued against the Principal Member of the Tribunal.

The Court acknowledged the disturbing nature of the case and the potential for a breach of natural justice, particularly in light of the Tribunal's strong findings of fact and rejection of the applicant's evidence. His Honour referred to the principles in *Mahon v Air New Zealand* [1984] AC 808, suggesting that the applicant may not have been adequately notified of the risk of such adverse findings being made, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to adduce further evidence. The Court also considered whether the Tribunal should have made further inquiries, especially given the specific details provided by the applicant. While noting the potential weakness of the applicant's case on the merits of persecution, the Court found sufficient grounds to warrant further investigation into the alleged breaches of natural justice and jurisdictional excess.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the application be adjourned until 11 February 2002. The applicant was granted leave to amend the order nisi and to file further supporting affidavits, with any such amendments or affidavits to be filed by 4.00 pm on Friday, 1 February 2002.