Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang

Last updated

MIEA v Wu Shan Liang
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameMinister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang, Huang Chang Jiang and Liu Jun Liang
Decided1996
Citation(s)185 CLR 259
Case opinions
Appeal allowed
Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh, & Gummow JJ
Kirby J
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingBrennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh, Gummow, and Kirby JJ

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

Contents

It is an important case in Australian Administrative Law, particularly for the court's discussion of the 'proper role of a reviewing court' when examining decisions made by the executive.

According to LawCite, Guo has been cited the seventh most times of any High Court decision. [1] [2]

Facts

a photograph at Port Hedland, the town in which the respondents to the appeal were detained Koombana Lookout, Port Hedland, 2012.JPG
a photograph at Port Hedland, the town in which the respondents to the appeal were detained

Wu Shan Liang and the other respondents to the appeal were nationals of the People's Republic of China. They had arrived by boat at Christmas Island in 1992 in a group of 68 Chinese nationals. All of the group were detained in Port Hedland. Some of the group were granted refugee visas, others abandoned their claims and returned to China. [3]

Some of the nationals persisted in their claims. Their claims for refugee status were rejected by ministerial delegate. They then appealed to the Federal Court. Wilcox J rejected their appeals, finding that error had not been shown on the part of any of the delegates involved in the respondent's cases. [4]

On appeal to the Full Federal Court, Sheppard, Lee and Carr JJ sided for the visa applicants; finding that the delegates had applied the wrong legal test. After analyzing the delegate's written reasons about the applicants having a 'well founded fear of persecution', they concluded that the delegate had incorrectly applied the 'balance of probabilities' test; instead of the 'real chance' test. [Note 1] [5]

The Minister then obtained special leave at the High Court.

Judgement

The High Court overturned the Full Federal Court, finding that the delegate had not misapplied the 'real chance' test. While the delegate had used some language in their decisions suggesting the balance of probabilities test had been applied, it was clear from other areas of their reasons that they were aware of the correct test that ought to have been applied. [6]

Additional comment was made on the principle of 'beneficial construction' when reviewing written reasons of the executive. The High Court endorsed prior commentary on the issue by a lower court which had held that; [6] 'The reasons for the decision under review are not to be construed minutely and finely with an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error.' [7]

The court additionally commented upon the difference between merits review and judicial review, writing: [8]

'These propositions are well settled. They recognise the reality that the reasons of an administrative decision-maker are meant to inform and not to be scrutinised upon over-zealous judicial review by seeking to discern whether some inadequacy may be gleaned from the way in which the reasons are expressed. In the present context, any court reviewing a decision upon refugee status must beware of turning a review of the reasons of the decision-maker upon proper principles into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision. This has been made clear many times in this Court.

For example, it was said by Brennan J in Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin : [9]

"The duty and jurisdiction of the court to review administrative action do not go beyond the declaration and enforcing of the law which determines the limits and governs the exercise of the repository's power. If, in so doing, the court avoids administrative injustice or error, so be it; but the court has no jurisdiction simply to cure administrative injustice or error. The merits of administrative action, to the extent that they can be distinguished from legality, are for the repository of the relevant power and, subject to political control, for the repository alone.'

After concluding that the delegate had applied the correct legal test in assessing the respondent's refugee claims; the High Court found for the Minister.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Chan v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs established that the 'real chance' test is to be applied when determining whether or not a refugee applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution

Related Research Articles

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

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.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is an Australian tribunal that conducts independent merits review of administrative decisions made under Commonwealth laws of the Australian Government. The AAT review decisions made by Australian Government ministers, departments and agencies, and in limited circumstances, decisions made by state government and non-government bodies. They also review decisions made under Norfolk Island laws. It is not a court and not part of the Australian court hierarchy; however, its decisions are subject to review by the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The AAT was established by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and started operation in 1976.

<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.

Administrative law in Singapore Law of Singapores government agencies

Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.

Illegality in Singapore administrative law Singaporean judicial review doctrine

Illegality is one of the three broad headings of judicial review of administrative action in Singapore, the others being irrationality and procedural impropriety. To avoid acting illegally, an administrative body or public authority must correctly understand the law regulating its power to act and to make decisions, and give effect to it.

Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law Singapores application of legal concept to protect the exercise of executive power

Exclusion of judicial review has been attempted by the Parliament of Singapore to protect the exercise of executive power. Typically, this has been done though the insertion of finality or total ouster clauses into Acts of Parliament, or by wording powers conferred by Acts on decision-makers subjectively. Finality clauses are generally viewed restrictively by courts in the United Kingdom. The courts there have taken the view that such clauses are, subject to some exceptions, not effective in denying or restricting the extent to which the courts are able to exercise judicial review. In contrast, Singapore cases suggest that ouster clauses cannot prevent the High Court from exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise of executive power where authorities have committed jurisdictional errors of law, but are effective against non-jurisdictional errors of law.

South African administrative law is the branch of public law in that country which regulates the legal relations of public authorities, whether with private individuals and organisations or with other public authorities, or better say, in present-day South Africa, which regulates "the activities of bodies that exercise public powers or perform public functions, irrespective of whether those bodies are public authorities in a strict sense." According to the Constitutional Court, administrative law is "an incident of the separation of powers under which the courts regulate and control the exercise of public power by the other branches of government."

<i>Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS</i>

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.

<i>Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.

<i>Briginshaw v Briginshaw</i> Prominent Australian High Court case decided in 1938

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (Briginshaw) is a decision of the High Court of Australia which considered how the requisite standard of proof should operate in civil proceedings.

<i>Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs</i>

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

<i>MIEA v Guo</i>

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>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>

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

<i>Applicant S v MIMA</i>

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

<i>Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf</i>

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

<i>MIMA v Respondents S152/2003</i>

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

<i>Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy</i>

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

References

  1. ↑ Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=&section=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=cited
  2. ↑ Note: data is as of September 2020
  3. ↑ 185 CLR 259, Kirby J at [4]
  4. ↑ 185 CLR 259, Kirby J at [8] - [9]
  5. ↑ 185 CLR 259, Kirby J at [9]
  6. 1 2 185 CLR 259, Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh & Gummow JJ at [30]
  7. ↑ Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280 at 287
  8. ↑ 185 CLR 259 at [31]
  9. ↑ (1990) 170 CLR 1 at [35] - [36]
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.