SZLDY v Minister for Immigration

This case involved an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicants, husband and wife and three of their children, are citizens of Lebanon who arrived in Australia on 2 December 2006. They sought review of a decision of the Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship not to grant them protection visas. The applicants were represented by counsel and solicitors. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Refugee Review Tribunal were represented by counsel and solicitors. The court considered the application on two amended grounds. The first ground was that the Tribunal failed to comply with s.425 of the Migration Act in that the standard of interpreting at the hearing held on 12 June 2007 was so inadequate that the applicant was denied a proper opportunity to put his claims to the Tribunal. The second ground was that in so far as the Tribunal's decision was based on a conclusion that the harm which the applicant feared was not motivated by a Convention reason, it involved a misapplication of the Convention definition of a "refugee". The court found that there had been a breach of s.425 of the Migration Act, as the applicant had been denied a proper opportunity to present his claims to the Tribunal. The mistranslations and omissions by the interpreter were of significance, or at least of potential significance, to the outcome of the case. The errors made by the interpreter had a material influence on the reasoning of the Tribunal in relation to the applicant's credibility. The court found that the mistranslations and omissions by the interpreter had a material influence on the reasoning of the Tribunal in relation to the applicant's credibility. The mistranslations and omissions by the interpreter were of significance, or at least of potential significance, to the outcome of the case. The errors made by the interpreter had a material influence on the reasoning of the Tribunal in relation to the applicant's credibility. The court found that the Tribunal had not misapplied the Convention definition of a refugee, but remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis that there had been a breach of s.425.