MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS v GUO & ANOR (Matter No S151 of 1996); MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS v PAN & ANOR (Matter No S152 of 1996)
Brennan C.J., Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, and Kirby JJ
MIEA v Guo, also known as 'Guo' is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case is an important decision in Australian refugee law. The case has been described as setting out 'what is required for a decision-maker to have a "rational basis" for determining whether an applicant for refugee status has a well founded fear of persecution'.[1]
According to LawCite, Guo has been cited the second most times of any High Court decision.[2][3]
Facts
Port Hedland; the location of the detention centre in which Guo and his wife were detained
Mr Guo and his wife, Ms Pan, the appeal respondents; were citizens of China. In May 1992 they arrived by boat in Australia, after having left China without permission from the authorities. Officials from the Department of Immigration & Ethnic Affairs detained the respondents alongside other passengers on the boat in a detention center. Sometime that month an application was made by Guo for a refugee visa. A delegate refused the application on 28 May 1992. The respondents then applied for review of the delegate's decision at committee. The committee affirmed the delegate's decision, and their findings were affirmed by another delegate.[4]
Prior to deportation Mr Guo and his brother participated in a public protest at Port Hedland. He and other protestors wore headbands marked with Chinese characters for 'hunger strike', and bore placards protesting against their treatment by the department. Three members jumped off a rooftop during the protest, including Mr Guo. Guo was identified as the protest leader in the publicity that subsequently arose.[4]
Subsequently, Guo others were deported to the PRC. Upon their re-entry they were detained for five days. The two brothers were then detained a further 23 days and fined 3,000 RMB. Guo claimed to have been rearrested and detained for four months from 5 June 1993, however the Tribunal rejected this claim in a later application. (made seven months later, and the subject of this appeal) [4]
On 5 December 1993 Guo and a group of relatives arrived in Broome. On 14 December the department received applications for refugee status; on the ground they had a well-founded fear of persecution of reason of political opinion. They claimed that, because they had illegally departed the PRC in 1992, and in 1993 had breached the one child policy; they would be persecuted for their political opinion. They also claimed to belong to a social group of Chinese citizens opposed to the one child policy. A delegate refused this application on 31 January 1994, and this was affirmed by Tribunal.[5]
The Tribunal found that nothing that occurred to Guo after he was deported to the PRC in 1992, was politically motivated. It found that his detention in China had merely been a consequence of penalties for illegal departure, and not because of his political activities. Charges for illegal departure were found to be unrelated to convention grounds; as they were applied to the Chinese population in general.[6]
Guo then sought judicial review. The Full Federal Court upheld his appeal, unanimously. Beaumont J upheld Guo's appeal, finding that the Tribunal had not considered whether political reasons could be inferred as informing the PRC authority's actions. Marcus Einfeld held that the Tribunal had erred in making findings on the balance of probabilities, undermining the real chance test established in Chan.
The Minister appealed to the High Court, in doing so making an undertaking as to costs.
Judgement
The High Court unanimously held that the Tribunal had not effectively applied a balance of probabilities test. The majority discussed the four elements for a 'refugee' finding, under the convention. They found that Guo did not satisfy one of the elements; that the person must be persecuted for a 'convention reason'. Membership of a social group consisting of 'parents of one child in China' did not constitute, the court held, a 'particular social group' under the convention.[7]
Turning to the 'well-founded fear' element of the test, the High Court criticized the Federal Court's direct application of Chan's real chance test. The court stressed that the test was a clarification of the convention's term 'well-founded', and shouldn't be used in substitution for the convention's words. They accused Einfeld J of having substituted and used the 'real chance' test exclusively; when he found the Tribunal had erred for having 'shunned speculation' [8]
The court then turned to the FFCA's finding that the Tribunal had applied the balance of probabilities test, instead of the 'real chance' test. The High Court quoted a previous statement in Wu Shan Liang, which had said:
"When conflicting information available to the Minister's delegate relates to some past event ... the attribution of greater weight to one piece of information as against another or an opinion that one version of the facts is more probable than another is not necessarily inconsistent with the correct application of the Chan test."
Despite this, they found that courts must consider both possible outcomes within any balance of probabilities finding; to ensure that the well-founded test is what applies. I.e. 'If, for example, a Tribunal finds that it is only slightly more probable than not that an applicant has not been punished for a Convention reason, it must take into account the chance that the applicant was so punished when determining whether there is a well-founded fear of future persecution'. They found that in the case before it, the Tribunal had 'no real doubt that its findings both as to the past and future were correct'.[9]
The Court therefore found for the Minister.
Significance
Guo is a significant judgement for the legal tests that apply for refugee determinations. Its development of that jurisprudence shortly followed the High Court's previous rulings in Chan and Wu Shan Liang. Guo is frequently cited alongside those cases in judgements and Tribunal decisions which discuss the convention's determination requirements. For example, in MIMA v RajalingamSackville J wrote:
"... the requirement in Wu Shan Liang and Guo (is) simply an aspect of the obligation to apply correctly the principles for determining whether an applicant has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted” for a Convention reason. The reasonable speculation in which the decision-maker must engage may require him or her to take account of the chance that past events might have occurred, even though the decision-maker thinks that they probably did not."[10]
The case has also been regarded as an authority for the proposition that 'past harm may be relevant to, but not determinative of, future persecution'.[11]
Related Research Articles
Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth [1991] HCA 32; (1991) 172 CLR 501, commonly referred to as the War Crimes Act Case, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the external affairs power in section 51(xxix) of the Constitution and the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case which established a de facto requirement that legal aid be provided to defendants in serious criminal trials. The Court determined an adjournment ought to be granted in such trials where the accused is without legal representation through no fault of their own and proceeding would result in the trial being unfair. The case is said to have "had a fundamental impact on the Australian justice system".
Barley Marketing Board (NSW) v Norman is a High Court of Australia case that deals with the question of whether State-run marketing boards are permissible under Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, which deals with the freedom of interstate trade and commerce.
Ha v New South Wales is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.
Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that provides guidance as to the constitutional definition of a tax.
Leeth v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that held that there was no implied right of legal equality in the Australian Constitution.
In Kruger v Commonwealth, decided in 1997, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, the High Court of Australia rejected a challenge to the validity of legislation applying in the Northern Territory between 1918 and 1957 which authorised the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The majority of the bench found that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion. The High Court unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills is a High Court of Australia case that deals with a number of issues regarding the Australian Constitution, including the Express right free interstate trade and commerce, the implied freedom of political communication, and the role of proportionality.
Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh was an Australian court case which was decided by the High Court of Australia on 7 April 1995. The case is notable for giving unprecedented significance to the ratification of international treaties by the executive government.
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) was a case before the High Court of Australia determining that the HREOC could not validly exercise judicial power. The High Court maintained a firm position against attempts to confer judicial powers upon non-judicial bodies.
Northern Territory v Mengel, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 19 April 1995. The decision dealt with the conceptual framework of tort law and held that liability under tort depended on the plaintiff establishing the defendant was either negligent or intended to cause harm to the plaintiff. It overruled the decision in Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith.
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, also known as 'S157', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
Henderson v Defence Housing Authority, also known as the Residential Tenancies case, is a landmark Australian High Court decision on intergovernmental immunity and states' rights under the Australian Constitution.
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to immigration law, jurisdictional error and illogicality as a ground of judicial review.
McGinty v Western Australia, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia in 1996. The plaintiffs sought to enshrine the principle of ‘one vote one value’ in the Australian Constitution, and has had a significant impact on how the High Court approaches matters of the franchise, as well as malapportionment. The plaintiff's submissions were unanimously rejected by the court, who found that the interpretation of sections 7 and 24 of the Australian Constitution did not require that all votes hold the same value. The High Court exercised its original jurisdiction in hearing the matter, meaning that the case did not need to proceed as an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (Chan) is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
MIMA v Khawar is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
MIEA v Wu Shan Liang is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
Applicant S v MIMA is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
Craig v South Australia is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
↑ Anderson, Adrienne (2020). [austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/SydLawRw/2020/8.html "A Well-Founded Fear of Being Persecuted But When"]. Sydney Law Review. 42: 155 – via AustLII.{{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
