WWKJ and Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to cancel the Applicant's Australian passport. This decision was made at the request of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), which had issued an adverse security assessment concerning the Applicant. ASIO suspected, on reasonable grounds, that the Applicant adhered to an extremist ideology and intended to travel to engage in politically motivated violence, which could prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country. The Applicant sought review of both the Minister's decision and ASIO's adverse security assessment.

The Tribunal was required to determine the legal standard of satisfaction applicable to ASIO's adverse security assessment and the Minister's subsequent decision to cancel the passport. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the meaning of "suspects on reasonable grounds" and the implications of the sensitive and potentially unverifiable nature of intelligence information in the context of national security assessments. The Tribunal also had to consider the procedural fairness requirements, particularly in light of certificates issued under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and the ASIO Act 1979 (Cth) that restricted the Applicant's access to certain information.

The Tribunal reasoned that while it must generally establish facts on the balance of probabilities, this standard must be applied in light of the nature of intelligence, which can be difficult to verify. The Tribunal affirmed that the standard for ASIO's suspicion under section 14(1)(a) of the Passports Act 2005 (Cth) is "on reasonable grounds." This standard requires the existence of facts sufficient to induce suspicion in a reasonable person, drawing on jurisprudence from cases like *George v Rockett*. The Tribunal noted that ASIO is not required to prove the likelihood of conduct on the balance of probabilities, but rather to have a reasonable suspicion. The Tribunal also considered that the potential consequences of failing to identify a security risk to the wider community necessitated a careful approach to the level of satisfaction required for an adverse security assessment. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the decisions under review.