Verrill and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

Mr Verrill applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for the Senior Member to recuse himself from his migration matter on the grounds of actual and apprehended bias. The applicant's concerns stemmed from media reports and Tribunal decisions in unrelated cases involving his former legal representatives, and a general apprehension that members in Brisbane might hold a grudge against him.

The Senior Member was required to determine whether the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, either actual or apprehended, such that he could not impartially hear Mr Verrill's case. This involved considering whether a fair-minded lay observer, knowing the facts, would conclude that the Senior Member might not bring an impartial mind to the issues.

The Senior Member reasoned that allegations of actual bias carry a heavy onus and require exceptional circumstances for a finding. He noted that Mr Verrill's objections were not directly related to the Leo'o Olo decision itself, and that Mr Verrill had not read the full decision in the "Mr P" case. The Senior Member also referred to the statutory oath of office taken by AAT members, the objective of the AAT Act to provide fair and just review, and the existence of Direction 110, which mandates a structured approach to visa cancellation decisions. He concluded that the applicant's concerns, when assessed against these public records and the legal framework, did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The application for recusal was refused.