Singh, Marjorie Sarawati v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs

[1983] FCA 408

1.

15 Dcccrnber, 1083 KEI.:I,Y J .

T h e a p p l i c a n t s , -#l10 a re husbx ld ancl wife, have

a p p l i e d t o revl.ew thrcc clccislons made ru>c?rr Che M ~ q r a t l o r .

A c t	1958.	The	a p p l i c a t l o n	i s ~ m d e under	S .	5	oi	t h e
--

Admjn i s t r a t ive - D e c ~ s ~ o n s ( J u c l l c ~ . a l . !<evic.d) A c t 1977 ( J u d l c i a1

Revlew Act) and ~t was colmon g r o u n d t -hat each appl i c s n t was

a person "aggr ieved" wl th ln the !rf;lninrJ t h a t s e c t l o n .

2 '

1983, i n respecL of a d e c i s i o n of t h c C.:injs'cer made on 5 May,

1 903 \;.hicl1 1s one of t h e d e c i s i o n s sought t o be revic:red by

t h e a p p l l c a n t s . T h a t s t a t e m e n t was fu rn i shed I n answer t o a

, !

i formal reques t made 31 on May, 1963 under S. t h e o f 1 3

4 :

J

J u d i c i a l Kevlew Act.

I

F i r s t , a d e c i s i o n o€ a n o f f i c e r of the Depar tmcr , t of

I rmnig ra t lon and E thn ic Af fa i r s ( t he o f€ i ce r ) made on 7 June,

I

!

1962 re fus~ .ng to g r a n t t o tke app l i can t s , unde r S . G of t h e

K i g r a t l o n A c t 1958, a f u r t h e r temporary an t ry permi t . The

appl lcan ts had each been granted temporary entry permlts on a

I

number o f occas ions In r e spec t of V ~ T I O L I S p e r i o d s t h e f 1 r s t

!

of whlch occurrcd i n early 1980 and the l a s t . of which e::pll-ed

i

' I on 1 June, 1962. Secondly, a d e c i s l o n of the r sponden t

I ,	i
l
1 M i n i s t e r l t t e r b y on 5 blay, 1 9 8 3 r e f u s l n g g r a n t t o t h e
,	a
i a p p l i c a n t s , u n d e r S . 6A(1) --the of Migration Act , "an e t ry
: j
-	I
I p e rmi t o he r t han a temporary en t ry permi t" i . e . r e f u s i n g to
i

g r a n t w h a t 1 s c o n v e n i e n t l y c a l l e d i n t h e a p p l i c a t x o n

, I	,	I
1	: "permanent res I.dence". An ex tens ion o f t he time p r e s c r i b e d
I	I

: i by S. 11 of the J u d i c i a l Revlew A c t f o r t h e l o d g i n g of the

i

; i	l	a p p l i c a t i o n	ir e s p e c t	of	the	d c i . s ion	of 7 June,	1982	was
!

? ! granied wi r ;hout any ob jec t ion by D r . Jessup, of counsc l , who

I

I appeared respondent . th for Thi rd ly , a d e c l s i o n of the

r e sponden t Min i s t e r , cons i s t ing of a s t a t e m e n t i n t h e l a s t

. .

paragraph of t h c same l e t t e r of 5 Mdy, 1983, whlch w a s

reqarde6 by i h e a p p l i c a n t s 2 5 z c7.il-ection t o them t o l e a v e

3 .

The a~nenc lcd app l i ca t - ion expres sed t hc g rounds

r e l i e d upon i n r e s p e c t of each of those t h ree dec j s io l ; s , a s

be inq :-

"That he making of the decis ions and each of then

was an improper exr.rcise of the p w e r conCerred hy

the enactment i n pursuance of \:hlch j t was purported

t o Se loadc 311 t h a t r e l e v a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s !were 1 5 t

taken 3nto x c o u n t i n t h e exercise of the povler and

in p a r t i c u l a r no or no s a f f i c i e n t c o n s l d e r a t l o n was

I

I

, I q i v e n t o t h e h e a l t h of Mar jor le Sawaswat l Slngh and

no o r i n 5 u f f i c i e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n was qiven t o t h e

n e e d o r d e s i r a b i l i t y of Mangal Sinqh remaining with

his wife and f ami ly In Aus t r a l i a " .

I	I
, '

' l	Mr. Gunst, of counsel.,	on	behalf	o f	t h e a p p L l c e n t s ,
1 :
j l

i n a ca re fu l ly p repa red and we l l p re sen ted a rgunen t subn l t t cd

' i

! l

t h a t e a c h c p p l i c a n t shoulcl have been grantcd a temporary

.	(
. I
3	.
I	, e n t r y p c r u t . He s u h n i t t e d t h a t the d e c i s l o n of 7 June ,
.	I

. >	1582,	i n	r e f u s i n g	Mrs.	S l n g h ' s	a p p l i c n t i o n ,	f a ~ l e d	t o	t a k e
: :

j.nto a c c o u n t c e r t a i n r e l . e ~ ~ a n t con:.i d e r a t l o n s . Those

1 -	considcl- , : t ions	were	: -
.. 1

4.

( a ) the need for jnunedlate 1mdicdi treatment f o r Mrs. S i n c r l l ;

(b) t he need Cor a d d i t i o n a l t i m e in which t o c x p l o r c the

q u e s t i o n of f u r r h e r m e d l c a i t r e a t m e n t f o r Mrs. Singll;

( C ) the n e e d f o r e a c h a p p l i c a n t b e t o "the h o l d e r of a

t empora ry en t ry pe rmi t rpnich 1 s I n f o r c e " i n o r d e r t o bc

e l i g i b l e t o make a p p l i c a t i o n , a s t h e y w i s h e d , f o r a n

e n t r y p e r m l t e n t i t l i n g t h e m t o permanent r e s i d e n c e ( c f .

S. 6A(1)).

However, each of Chose m a t t e r s was r e f e r r e d t o i n

t h e m a t e r i a l a d v a n c e d t o the o f f i c e r b e f o r e the d e c i s i o n o f 7

June, 1982. T h a t l na t e r l a l i nc luded a i c t t e r , da t ed l 4 Play,

1982, by D r . Sewak w h i c h r e f e r r e d t o Plrs. S ingh ' s medica l

c o n d i r i o n and express ly reques ted "an ex tens ion of h e r VlSd

f o r a t l e a s t h r e e m o n t h s " . iIe wrote a fu r the r suppor t i i i g

l e t t e r , d a t e d 2 6 May, 1982. Further , the Reverend Dr.

Moonie, i n a s t r o n g l y w o r d e d l e t t e r , d a t e d 13 May, 1982,

r e f e r r e d t o h e r " s e r i o u s i l l n e s s t h a t i s v e r y d l f f i c u l t t o

t rea t" and zo t he need fo r more t o be " learned about t l re

n a t u r c o f her condi t ion" and sa id 'I.. . I u r g e n t l y a s k t h a t

h e r c u r r e n t vi.sa be extcnded t o a l l o w h e r zo e x p l o r e f u r t h e r

t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f a l t e r n a t i v e f o r m s o f t r e a t m e n t . " He

r e f e n ? ? c x p r e s s l y t o t h e c f € e c t s upon Frs. Singh of her

3

1	medical	condItLon	and	i t 5 consequences	and	the advantage oL
i i

, L

"the cooler Melbourne c l i inate" . HIS concluding words were :-

O n thc! ev idence hefore the Cour t , each of those <.WO

l e t t e r s frcm D r . Sewak and t h e l e t t e r by D r . t.;oonle i n

suppor t of th:: a p p l i c a t i o n s €or fu r the r t empora ry en t ry

pernits were received by the o f f i c e r . Ir i s a g a ~ . n s t t h a t

backgro tmd tha t the Cour t must cons ide r the d e c i s i o n of 7

June, 1982 which inc ludes the fo l lowing pa rag raph :-

" C a r e f u l c o n s l d c r a t i o n has b e e n g i v e n t o y o u r

application f o r a f u r t h e r e x t c n s ~ o n but t h e ~ - e ; ~ s o n s

pct forward cln n o t ~ 1 1 s t ~ l ' y a d e p a r t u r e fro,o nornwl

Government p o l i c y . Your app l l cak ion i s t h e r c f o r e

not approved. "

M r . Guns t submi t t ed t ha t t ha t s t a t en icn t WAS a mere

a s s e r t i o n b y t h e o f f l c e r t h a t c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n h a d b e e n

g lven . He i n v i t e d t h e C o u r t t o d i s r e q a r d t h a t a s s e r t i o n and

t o i n f e r t h a t t h e o f f l c e r h a d n o t 1.n € a c t g i v e n c a r e f u l

>	c o n s i d c r a t l o n	t o	t h e	r e l c v a n t	m a t t e r s :	m	so submi t t ing	he
!

i p o h t e d Co v e r y t h e b r e f e r e n c e , i e f i n t h e M i n i s t e r ' s

"reasons" of J u l y 1983, t o t h e f a c t t h a t " n o f u r t h e r e n t r y

p e r m i t s h a v e b e e n q r a n t e d t o t h e a p p l i c a n t s " . Ilowever, i n

t h l s connex lon two m a t t e r s m u s t be borne in mind. One i s

t h a t t h e K i n i s t c r ' s "reasons" were on ly rurn ished a s r casons

f o r h is OWI dcci:,ion of 5 Xay, 1903 and dicl n o t p u r p o r t t o ix

r e a s o n s f o r t h e c f f l c r r ' s d c c 1 s l o r l o f 7 Jun?, 1982. Tlic

, .

- ,

.- - - -__,._ , - - ..

G .

other is t h a t , a1 thouqh the paragraph 111 t h e o f f i c e r ' S letter

of 7 June, 1962 was only a br1cf s tc l tc lncnt , spparent ly no

st.eps were talccn t o o b t a i n an e l abora t ion o f Cha t s t a t cmenr

by applyj ng f o r a " s t a t ewen t in writ L n q " under S. 13 of t h e

J u d i c i a l Review h t . In those c i rcumstances I am unable to

see any reason why I should doubt t h r : s t a tement o f the

o f f i c e r thdt " c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t l o n has been g ivcn t o your

a p p l i c a t i o n " - f o l l o v e d i m m e d i a ~ e l y , a s i t ic,, by a

r e f e r e n c e t o "the reasons p u t for i ra rd" . In my o p ~ n i o n t h c r e

i s iio ground for concluding t h a t C h e o f f i c e r f a i l e d to Cakc J

r e l e v a n t c o n s i d e r a t l o n i n t o a c c o u n t i n t h e x e r c l s e of his

pover under S. G of tbe Mlgrat ion Act .

Mr. G u n s t s o u g h t o p l a c e some r e l i a n c e "upon rhe

p o t e n t i a l disruption t o the f a n l l y u n i t " which would flow

fro111 a r e f u s a l of e i t h e r o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r a temporary

e n t r y p e r m i t . my On r e a d i n g -. of t h e m a t e r i a l , C h a t

c o n s i d e r a t l o n was not advanced t o t h e o f f i c e r as a " reason"

i n s u p p o r t of t h e a p p l i c a r i o n s ( s e e also t h e t e r m s o f t h e

wrj t t e n a p p l i c a t i o n s d a t e d 1 4 May, 1 9 8 2 ) : i f such a ma t t e r

was advanced t o the o f f l c e r , d o u b t l e s s it was given the same

"carefu l	c o n s l d e r a t i o n "	as	t h a t -	a f f o r d e d	t o	t h e	o t h e i -
m a t e r i a l .

A t t h e h e a r i n g D r . J e s s u p , on b e h a l f o f t h e

respondent , d id n o t o b ~ e c t o a widening of rhc grounds

apear? .ng i n t hp am~nder l ?~pp l~ .cz t 1011 so a s t o i n c l ucl? orher

.- -~ ~ -- ._ . - - . . . . _

\

qroumls under S. 5 of the J u c l l c j a l Rcvi ev A c t , i n c l i ~ d i n g

r e l i a n c e upon m e r r o r 0;' ldlr: ba,;cd upon a c o n r e n t l o n t h a t

t h e d e c i s i o n o f 7 June, 1382 was " S O unrcasonab le t ha t no

rcasondble p r s m could have 50 exe rc i sed t he povc r" ( s ee S.

5 ( l ) ( f ) and S. 5 ( 2 ) ( g ) o f t h e J d d i c i a l Revicw Act). I t wlll

be c l c a r from those words i n S. 5 o f t h e J u d i c i a l Review Act

that thls Court does not have power t o make a decision upon

e

the questio:1 wheti:cr Mr. and ilrs. Slngh s oul.d, on t h e

m e r i t s , h a v e b e e n q i v e n e n t r y p e r m i t s - t e m p o r a r y or

pel'rnanent - and therefore should not express any opjnion upon

tha t cpes ' ixon . I c u n p l c t e l y a g r e e w i t h the dictum of Ileane

J. i n Sean Inves tvents Ptv. Lrd. v MacKelLar (1981) 3 8 A . L . R .

--

363 a t p. 371, t h a t :-

"The c o u r t m u s t , i n V I ~ v i e w , b e v i g i l a n t o e n s u r e

'l

t h a t it. d02s not , under the gu ise o f rev iewing

n d m i n i s t r + t i v e c t e c l s i o n s o n c : u c s t i o n s o f I . a w ,

t t r e s p a s s i n fields of admln i s t r a t lve 6ec i s lon mak ing

i n	r c l s t l on	t o	wb~.ch it	posscs ses	ne l the r	manda	te
n o r	s p e c i a l

,i q u a l i f l c a t i o n . "

The C o u r t ' s power t o r e v l e w t h e d e c l s l o n is a

l imi ted one . A s Fox J. sa id In Borkov ic v M i n i s t e r f o r

Irmniqrntion and Et-hnlc Affairs (1981) 39 A . L . R . 186 a t p . 168

I_

.-

"It i s p l a i n t h a t E n d e r t h e A c t i n q u e s t i o n t h i s

court does not have power t o make a d e c i s i o n on t.hc

m e r i t s of t h e f a c t u a l p o s l t i o n f o r ~ C s e l f . I t 1 s

p l a i n t h a t ~t j.5 not inoitccl or elqpovere(i undcr the

Act t o cons ider the f r c t s f o r itself for thc Lxrpose

of forminq s?nrl ? e c l a r i n g i t s rm v tew thti-eon. of

course , j.n o r~ :e r $.c Lpply sonc of t h e p ~ - o v i s l o n s oi

!

- - .._"__ ."_ . _ _ _ . . . . -

!

T h e r e a r e m s n p e r a b l e d l f f l c u l t i e s l y i n q in t h e

paCh of t h e p r e s e n t a p p l i c a n t s in t h e l r s u h j s s j o n th;?L-. t h e

d c c l s l o n wzs so u n r e a s o n a b l e t h a t no reasonablc person cou1.d

have so d e c i d e d . F i r s t , power t o g r a n t a temporary en t ry

permit i s one given by t h e M i g r a t i o n A c t t o an officer of t h e

DeparCment - no t t o t h i s Cour t . Secon ; l ly , t he power qiven i s

a d i s c r e t l o n a r y on?. Thj r r l l y , the i . i ~ q r a t ~ o n A c t does not lay

dorrn m y c r i t e r i a g o v c r n l n g t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e d i s c r c t ~ o n .

Four t -h ly , there was r m t e r i a l . b e f o r e t h e o f f i c e r U ~ O I ? which he

could have based h i 5 d e c i y i o n t o r c f u s c t o g r x l t a i ~ ? r t h e r

temporary entry permj t 011 7 June , 153532. A l e t t c l - , d a t e d 2 4

December,	1S8i.	from	D r .	F.	F i r k i n ,	F . R . A . C . P . ,	of	S t .
..	-.

V i n c e n t ' s I I o s p l t a l , a f t e r d e a l i n g w l t h h e r i n e d i c a l c o n d l t i o n ,

concluded with the following :-

"A reasonable time-span t o c a r r y out t reat :nent woulcl

t a k z u n t i l t h ? end of Apri l , 1 9 8 2 , and t.hIs could be

a c h i e v e d i f you would be prepared t o e x t e n d 5e1- visa

€or a f u r t h e r t h r e e m o n t h s . I am happy CO f u l l y

s u p p o r t s u c h a c t i o n s p e c j f i c a l l y on the b a s i s oi t h e

need f o r adequa te t r a t rne l ik o f hcr r r e d l c a l

cond l t ion . "

I.

017 a l l t h e m a t e r i a l t h a t w a s b c f o r e t h c o f f i c e r , i n c l u d i n g

9

Perhaps J should adcl thaC i.he let-ter, da ted 7 June ,

1 9 8 2 , from t h c o f f i c e r t o Chc appl jcants cor ic ludcd with thc

f o l l o v i n g "paragraph :-

I

On the whole of t h e m a t e r i a l there 1s no ground

upcn which M r . Singh can succeecl i n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n I n

r e s p e c t O f t h e d e c i s i o n o f 7 June, 1982 i f Mrs. S i n g h ' s

application i s no t success fu l .

A s it has no< been e s t abLi shed tha t t he dec i s lon of

7 June, 1982 should he quashed o r s e t a s i d e u n d e r S. 16(1) o€

t h e J u d i c i a l Review A c t o r r e f e r r e d back for f u r t h e r

cons ide ra t . i on , t he app l l ca t i cn by each app l i can t ~n r e s p e c t

of that d e c i s i o n must he d l s n i s s e d .

. ' c 10.

111 r c s p c c t o f L h e decls lon oi i h e r e s p o n d e n t

MinlsCer on 5 May, 1983, ~t 1 s c l c d r from the e v i d e n c e t h a t

n e ~ . t h c r a p p l i c a n t was "the ho ldc r of a tcinporary entry

l

permit" .vihJ.ch !:as j n Eorce on tha t day and accord ingly

n e j t h e r o f them f c l l w i th ln the Lcrms of S. 6h( I.) ( c ) oi the

Migrat ion Act. I t was no t sugges t ed t ha t t he ap?1 j c a n t s

could I~r ing thcmsc. lves within any oLilcr psrdqraph in S . Gh(1)

of c h a t Act. I t f o l 1 . 0 ~ ~ r'roln the provls loi ls of t h a t section

t h a t the respondent on 5 May, 1983 c o u l d n o t l a w f u l l y g r a n t

t o e i d l e r applicant "an e n t r y p c r m i t o t h e r t h a n a temporary

e n t r y p c r m i t " (6. GA(8) ) .

A C C O ~ J ng ly , the a p p l i c a t i o q ill respcc'. 0:' tha'.

d e c l s i o n o€ 5 May, 1983 m u s t he dl ;n~.ssed. For thc? same

rensons the a p p l i c a t i o n i n r e s p e c t of t h c t h i r d e c i s i o n

(fissurning, contrary t o the suhmissm.1 of D r . J e s s u p , that. i t

was a decision) will a l s o be d lsmlssed . The a p p l i c z n c s a r e

to p a y t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s c o s t s .

i

1