Thompson and Minister for Foreign Affairs

The applicant, Mr Thompson, sought review of the Minister for Foreign Affairs' decision to refuse to issue him an Australian passport under section 14 of the *Australian Passports Act 2005* (Cth). The refusal was based on evidence suggesting the applicant had committed child sex offences and possessed child pornography. The applicant denied these allegations. The matter was heard by Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Minister's decision to refuse the passport was justified, considering the evidence of the applicant's alleged offending, his risk of re-offending, remorse, and rehabilitation. The Tribunal was required to determine the weight to be given to the convictions in Fiji and Queensland, and whether the applicant had successfully challenged the facts underpinning those convictions.

The Tribunal applied principles established in Federal Court decisions, particularly *Minister for Home Affairs and Sharma* [2019] FCA 597, which affirmed that administrative decision-makers must be cautious when making findings inconsistent with the facts underpinning a criminal sentence. Where a conviction is the foundation for the exercise of power, the facts on which it is based are generally not challengeable, though the circumstances may be reviewed for other purposes. However, if the power is not founded on the conviction, the underlying facts are open to challenge, albeit with a heavy onus on the challenger. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims of innocence regarding the Fijian and Queensland convictions, noting the corroborating evidence presented in the Fijian appeal and the nature of the applicant's previous remarks concerning the Queensland charge. The Tribunal also considered evidence from an AFP officer regarding the applicant's expressed interest in travelling to countries with weaker child protection frameworks and his potential to exploit disadvantaged children.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding no reason to grant the applicant a passport. The decision was made to ensure the names of children were not included in the published reasons.