Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS

Last updated

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided26 May 2010
Citation(s) [2010] HCA 16, (2010) 240  CLR  611
[2010] HCASum 15
Transcript(s)
Case history
Prior action(s)
Case opinions
Majority Heydon, Crennan & Bell JJ
Dissent Gummow ACJ, Kiefel J

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS, [1] 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.

Contents

Background

Facts

The applicant, known by the code SZMDS, [2] was a citizen of Pakistan who claimed to have engaged in homosexual activities from 2005 to 2007 and that he was fearful of persecution if he returned to Pakistan. He had resided in the United Arab Emirates since 2004. In 2006 he briefly visited the United Kingdom however he did not seek asylum at that time. In 2007 he had returned to Pakistan for three weeks. In 2007 he arrived in Australia and sought asylum as a refugee. [3] [4]

A delegate of the Minister for Immigtration and citizenship was not satisfied that the applicant's claims of homosexuality were credible and decided not to grant him a protection visa. [5]

The applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal, which was created to provide a merits review of decisions relating to the grant of protection visas to persons claiming to be refugees. [6] The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant's claims to be a homosexual and found that there was no real chance that he would face persecution if he were to return to Pakistan. In particular the Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct in returning to Pakistan from the United Arab Emirates and his failure to seek protection during his visit to the United Kingdom in 2006 was inconsistent with his claimed fear of persecution arising as a result of his homosexuality. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was fearful as a result of such activities or as a result of his homosexuality. [5]

Under the Migration Act 1958 decisions of the Tribunal were final and the merits of the decision could not be challenged in a court. [7] In Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth , [8] the High Court held that the section did not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under s75(v) of the Constitution, [9] because it did not extend to decisions affected by jurisdictional error. In order to minimise applications to the High Court, the Migration Act 1958 gave the same jurisdiction to the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. [6]

Prior actions

The jurisdictional errors alleged before the Federal Magistrates Court were that

  1. The Tribunal did not consider the severe penalties the applicant will face as a homosexual in Pakistan.
  2. The Tribunal erred in using unreliable country information.
  3. The Tribunal failed to consider the dangers of the applicant if he returned to his home country. [5] : at [18] 

Federal Magistrate Scarlett held that the Tribunal had not committed any jurisdictional error. [5]

The applicant was unrepresented before the Federal Magistrates Court however he was represented by a pro bono Barrister before the Federal Court.

The applicant successfully appealed to the Federal Court, where Moore J held that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by reaching a conclusion on illogical and irrational grounds. What was held to be illogical and irrational about the Tribunal's reasoning was that it assumed others in Pakistan would discover that the applicant was a homosexual during the brief period of his visit without making findings as to how that could be and that, in light of the applicant's explanation, there was no logical connection between his failure to apply for protection in the United Kingdom and his fear of persecution in Pakistan. [3] : at [26]-[28] 

The Minister appealed to the High Court and was granted special leave on condition that the Minister pay the applicant's reasonable legal costs in the Federal Court and in the High Court regardless of the outcome. [10]

Arguments

The Minister and the Tribunal had a narrow discretion, [11] in that if they were satisfied the Applicant met the criteria then a protection visa must be granted and if not satisfied then the protection visa must be refused. The Minister was represented by the Solicitor-General, Gageler SC, who argued that the Tribunal's fact finding was not illogical and that mere illogicality in the course of reaching a conclusion of fact was not an independent ground of review, but rather an inference of jurisdictional error on other grounds. That is illogicality or irrationality must be so extreme as to show that the opinion formed could not possibly be formed by a Tribunal acting in good faith. The applicant was represented by Game SC who argued that whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa was a fact on which the Tribunal's jurisdiction depended. The determination of a jurisdictional fact could be reviewed on the grounds that it was "irrational, illogical and not based on findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds". [1] : pp 3–4 

Judgement

Irrationality as a ground of judicial review

The majority of the High Court, Gummow A-CJ, Kiefel, Crennan and Bell JJ, held that irrationality in the finding of the jurisdictional fact was capable of amounting to a jurisdictional error. [12]

Crennan & Bell JJ held that "In the context of the Tribunal's decision here, "illogicality" or "irrationality" sufficient to give rise to jurisdictional error must mean the decision to which the Tribunal came, in relation to the state of satisfaction required under s 65, is one at which no rational or logical decision maker could arrive on the same evidence." [1] : at [130]  and that "the test for logicality or irrationality must be to ask whether logical or rational or reasonable minds might adopt different reasoning or might differ in any decision or finding to be made on evidence upon which the decision is based." [1] : at [131]  A decision would be illogical or irrational if

Similarly Gummow A-CJ and Kiefel J held that a decision upon a jurisdictional fact which was arbitrary, capricious, irrational or not bona fide was a failure to exercise jurisdiction that could be reviewed by the courts. [1] : at [23]-[24] 

Heydon J held that as the Tribunal's reasoning was not illogical, it was not necessary to decide whether irrationality was a ground of judicial review. [1] : at [87] 

Findings of jurisdictional fact

The court divided on the question of whether the Tribunals reasons, with the majority, Heydon, Crennan and Bell JJ holding that the Tribunals reasons were not irrational or illogical. Crennan and Bell JJ found that the process of reasoning of the Tribunal was that:

Crennan and Bell JJ held that "On the probative evidence before the Tribunal, a logical or rational decision maker could have come to the same conclusion as the Tribunal" and that therefore there was no jurisdictional error. [1] : at [135] 

Heydon J similarly held that the Tribunal's reasons were not limited to the applicant's visits to Pakistan and the United Kingdom, and included that the Tribunal disbelieved the applicant's claim to have engaged in homosexual activities in Australia. [1] : at [67] & [71]  In this context the Tribunal did not accept the applicant's explanations for his visits to Pakistan and the United Kingdom was not illogical, whether or not all minds would share that thinking. [1] : at [84]-[86] 

Gummow ACJ & Kiefel J dissented on the basis that the reasoning that the applicant was to be disbelieved, particularly in relation to his account of his life in the UAE, was an inference not supported on logical grounds. [1] : at [53] 

Related Research Articles

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

<i>Al-Kateb v Godwin</i> 2004 decision of the High Court of Australia

Al-Kateb v Godwin, was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 6 August 2004 that the indefinite detention of a stateless person was lawful. The case concerned Ahmed Al-Kateb, a Palestinian man born in Kuwait, who moved to Australia in 2000 and applied for a temporary protection visa. The Commonwealth Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. In 2002, Al-Kateb declared that he wished to return to Kuwait or Gaza. However, since no country would accept Al-Kateb, he was declared stateless and detained under the policy of mandatory detention.

<i>Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth</i>

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, also known as 'S157', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Rowe v Electoral Commissioner</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Rowe v Electoral Commissioner is a High Court of Australia case dealing with the requirement of the Australian Constitution that members of Parliament be "directly chosen by the people". The High Court held that Commonwealth legislation that sought to restrict the time in which a person may seek to enroll in an election or alter their enrolment details after the writs for an election have been issued was invalid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Precedent fact errors in Singapore law</span> Singaporean legal doctrine

Errors as to precedent facts, sometimes called jurisdictional facts, in Singapore administrative law are errors committed by public authorities concerning facts that must objectively exist or not exist before the authorities have the power to take actions or make decisions under legislation. If an error concerning a precedent fact is made, the statutory power has not been exercised lawfully and may be quashed by the High Court if judicial review is applied for by an aggrieved person. The willingness of the Court to review such errors of fact is an exception to the general rule that the Court only reviews errors of law.

<i>Plaintiff M70 v Minister for Immigration</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Plaintiff M70 is a decision by the High Court of Australia. The lawsuit concerned an injunction sought by multiple Afghan asylum seekers against immigration minister Chris Bowen. The injunction was to prevent Bowen from deporting the plaintiffs to Malaysia, pursuant to s198A of the Migration Act. The purpose of the deportation was to avoid their asylum application from being assessed by Australia.

Jurisdictional error is a concept in administrative law, particularly in the UK and Australia. Jurisdiction is the "authority to decide", and a jurisdictional error occurs when the extent of that authority is misconceived. Decisions affected by jurisdictional error can be quashed by judicial review. Examples of jurisdictional errors include asking a wrong question, ignoring relevant material, relying on irrelevant material, and breaching natural justice.

In Canada, judicial review is the process that allows courts to supervise administrative tribunals' exercise of their statutory powers. Judicial review of administrative action is only available for decisions made by a governmental or quasi-governmental authority. The process allows individuals to challenge state actions, and ensures that decisions made by administrative tribunals follow the rule of law. The practice is meant to ensure that powers delegated by government to boards and tribunals are not abused, and offers legal recourse when that power is misused, or the law is misapplied. Judicial review is meant to be a last resort for those seeking to redress a decision of an administrative decision maker.

<i>Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (Chan) is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>MIEA v Guo</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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'.

<i>Chen Shi Hai v MIMA</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Chen Shi Hai v MIMA, also known as 'Chen' is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>MIMA v Haji Ibrahim</i> Court decision

MIMA v Haji Ibrahim is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>MIMA v Khawar</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

MIMA v Khawar is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

MIEA v Wu Shan Liang is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Applicant S v MIMA</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Applicant S v MIMA is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf, also known as 'Yusuf', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Appellant S395/2002 v MIMA</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Appellant S395/2002 v MIMA is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs</i>

SZBEL v MIMA is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>MIMA v Respondents S152/2003</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

MIMAvRespondents S152/2003 is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales</i>

Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that dealt with the constitutional limits on State Courts' powers and the doctrine of jurisdictional error.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16 , (2010) 240 CLR 611 "judgment summary" (PDF). High Court. 26 May 2010.
  2. ↑ The effect of the Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No. 6) 2001 (Cth) is that courts cannot name plaintiffs seeking protection visas in order to reduce the potential that the publication the applicants name may create further protection claims for people in Australia or put their families and colleagues overseas at risk of harm: "Explanatory Memorandum".
  3. 1 2 SZMDS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 210 (10 March 2009), Federal Court
  4. ↑ Hume, D (30 July 2010). "Asylum and the High Court". Australian Policy Online.
  5. 1 2 3 4 SZMDS v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 1064 (8 July 2008), Federal Magistrates Court.
  6. 1 2 French CJ (25 March 2011). "The Role of the Courts in Migration Law" (PDF).
  7. ↑ Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 474.
  8. ↑ Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2 , (2003) 211 CLR 476 "judgment summary" (PDF). High Court. 4 February 2003.
  9. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court.
  10. ↑ Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2009] HCATrans 183 (31 July 2009).
  11. ↑ A narrow discretion is one where "the decision-maker is required to make a particular decision if he or she forms a particular opinion or value judgment": Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47 , (2000) 203 CLR 194 at [19] p 205.
  12. ↑ Johnston, P; Young, S; Hooker, R & Pontre, T (2011). "Probing the Frontiers of Administrative law". Aial Forum. (2011) 67 Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum 1 at p 12.
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.