PPHF v Director-General of Security

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PPHF v Director-General of Security [2011] FCAFC 70

Citation:		PPHF v Director-General of Security [2011] FCAFC 70
Appeal from:		PPHF and Ors and Director-General of Security [2010] AATA 1020
Parties:		PPHF, VGZS and BYRH v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SECURITY
File number:		NSD 19 of 2011
Judges:		EMMETT, PERRAM AND ROBERTSON JJ
Date of judgment:		23 May 2011
Legislation:		Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 44 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 ss 35, 36, 37, 38, 54 Migration Act 1958 s 33 Migration Regulations 1994
Cases cited:		Buck v Comcare (1996) 66 FCR 359
Date of hearing:	23 May 2011
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	43
Counsel for the Applicants:	P R Boulten SC with S Prince and G Del Villar
Solicitor for the Applicants:	SBA Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	P J Hanks QC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 19 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

PPHF
First Applicant

VGZS
Second Applicant

BYRH
Third Applicant

AND:

DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SECURITY
Respondent

JUDGES:	EMMETT, PERRAM AND ROBERTSON JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	23 MAY 2011
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The applicants pay the costs of the Director–General of Security.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 19 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

PPHF
First Applicant

VGZS
Second Applicant

BYRH
Third Applicant

AND:

DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SECURITY
Respondent

JUDGES:	EMMETT, PERRAM AND ROBERTSON JJ
DATE:	23 MAY 2011
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EMMETT J

1. I agree with Robertson J that the appeal should be dismissed. In particular, I agree that there is nothing in the language of s 36 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) to suggest that it only applies to a security assessment in relation to the exercise of power or the performance of a function, the exercise or performance of which has been triggered or activated by an application for a visa. Secondly, it is clear, in my view, as Robertson J indicates, that s 36(b) is concerned with the status of a person referred to at the time at which the security assessment is made. It would be curious if a person who was taken to have been granted a special purpose visa should, for all time thereafter, be within paragraph (iii), but a person who had held a valid permanent visa, but whose visa had been cancelled, no longer fell within paragraph (ii). I agree that there was no error on the part of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for…