SINGH v Minister for Home Affairs

Singh (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs (the respondent) to refuse to grant him a visa. The applicant had been convicted of a criminal offence and was subject to mandatory detention. The Minister's decision was made under s 501(3)(c) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which allows the Minister to refuse to grant a visa if the person passes the "character test" and the Minister reasonably suspects that the person has a substantial criminal record. The applicant argued that the Minister's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse the visa under s 501(3)(c) of the *Migration Act* was affected by jurisdictional error. This involved determining whether the Minister had reasonably suspected that the applicant had a substantial criminal record, as required by the provision, and whether the Minister had properly considered all relevant considerations, including the applicant's personal circumstances and the strength of the evidence.

Judge Jarrett found that the Minister's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. The court held that the Minister's assessment of the applicant's criminal record was based on an erroneous understanding of the relevant legislation and the evidence before him. Specifically, the Minister failed to properly consider the nature and circumstances of the applicant's conviction, and the impact of the refusal on the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court emphasised that a decision under s 501(3)(c) requires a genuine and rational assessment of the evidence, not merely a perfunctory application of the statutory criteria.

The court ordered that the decision of the Minister be quashed and remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.