Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 [2003] HCA 30

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND CALLINAN JJ

RE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND FIRST RESPONDENT

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

EX PARTE APPLICANT S20/2002 PROSECUTOR

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs;

Ex parte Applicant S20/2002

[2003] HCA 30

17 June 2003

S20/2002

ORDER

Application dismissed with costs, including any reserved costs.

Representation:

B W Walker SC with L J Karp for the prosecutor (instructed by McDonells Solicitors)

S J Gageler SC with G R Kennett for the first respondent (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

No appearance for the second respondent.

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND CALLINAN JJ

APPELLANT S106/2002 APPELLANT

AND

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND RESPONDENT

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Appellant S106/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

17 June 2003

S106/2002

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia

Representation:

B W Walker SC with L J Karp for the appellant (instructed by McDonells Solicitors)

S J Gageler SC with G R Kennett for the respondent (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002

Appellant S106/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Immigration – Refugees – Temporary protection visas – Application for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under s 75(v) of the Constitution – Where Refugee Review Tribunal found that applicant was an unreliable witness and discounted evidence said to be corroborative – Whether Tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds" – Whether Tribunal's decision was affected by actual bias or by a reasonable apprehension of bias – Whether Tribunal's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error – Distinction between discretionary decisions and decisions involving the finding of facts essential to the exercise of jurisdiction – Whether Tribunal's decision evidenced an erroneous approach to the finding of jurisdictional facts.