Paul Cutler's Migration Case Law Blog
Irrelevant Consideration
Was it an irrelevant consideration to take into account juvenile offending when deciding to revoke a character cancellation decision? In Minister v Thornton [2023] HCA 17, a majority of the High Court found that it was.
Mr Thornton came to Australia from the UK as a 3 year old. By the time he had turned 16, he had been found guilty of a number of offences (including assault/obstruct police officer) in the QLD Children’s Court. His bad behaviour (more assaults) continued after he turned 18 and inevitably his visa was cancelled.
The issue which took the matter to the High Court was the intersection of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (QLD), the Crimes Act and s501CA of the Migration Act. Under the Youth Justice Act, Mr Thornton was taken to have never been convicted of an offence as a child under QLD law.
It was clear that in assessing whether he was an unacceptable risk to the community, the Minister had taken the childhood offending into account.
One interesting feature of this case, is that it appears that the issue of childhood offending was raised by Mr Thornton. Gordon and Edelman JJ (at [47]) noted that the Minister was required to consider Mr Thornton’s representations (which included reference to childhood offending). However, that didn’t prevent it being an irrelevant consideration which resulted in an error of reasoning.
Gageler and Jagot JJ (at [37]) found that considering the childhood offending was both impermissible and material in the sense that the decision might have been different if it hadn’t been considered.
Steward J’s dissent was based primarily on a different construction of the Crimes Act. However, his Honour also referred to Viane as authority for the proposition that there may be few mandatorily irrelevant matters that the Minister must not consider.
Creative commons acknowledgment for the photograph.
Social Media and Section 57
When I first read the decision in Plaintiff M7/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 14 , my first thought was that it was unusual because it was a single judge (Gordon J) final decision. That came about because, having missed the deadline for merits review in the AAT (by 1 day due to a miscalculation), the High Court (provided some procedural hurdles about time extensions were overcome),...
The Alcohol Merchant
It is not difficult to imagine that being an alcohol merchant in Iran might not be the safest choice of profession.Militant groups frequently target alcohol merchants for religious reasons. The issue arises as to whether that is a sufficient basis to enliven Australia's obligations to provide protection to the Applicant. You might initially think that persecution could easily be avoided with a...
Update on serve or give
I have previously blogged about about the Full Federal Court decision in EFX17. It was my view that the Full Court had it right and it was only procedurally fair that a requirement of "understanding" was implied in the giving of notices under the Migration Act. Unfortunately, the Minister didn't hold the same view and appealed to the High Court . Even more unfortunately, the High Court agreed:...
Credibility reversed
This is not the first time that I have blogged about credibility, but I re-iterate that (adverse) credibility findings are the bane of the applicant lawyer's life. The main reason is that usually (there are exceptions) an adverse credibility finding by a delegate is a finding of fact and can't be judicially reviewed. The reverse problem occurred in ABT17 v Minister for Immigration and Border...