Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v AAM17 [2021] HCA 6

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIEFEL CJ,

KEANE, GORDON, EDELMAN AND STEWARD JJ

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP,

MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL

AFFAIRS APPELLANT

AND

AAM17 & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v AAM17

[2021] HCA 6

Date of Hearing: 3 December 2020

Date of Judgment: 4 March 2021

P23/2020

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside orders 3 to 5 of the orders made by the Federal Court of Australia on 25 November 2019 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed.

On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia

Representation

G R Kennett SC with C I Taggart for the appellant (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

P E Cahill SC with D V Blades for the first respondent (instructed by Rothstein Lawyers)

Submitting 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.

CATCHWORDS

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v AAM17

Immigration – Visas – Application for protection visa – Procedural fairness – Where delegate of Minister rejected first respondent's application for protection visa – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed delegate's decision – Where first respondent sought judicial review of that decision in Federal Circuit Court – Where first respondent unrepresented before Circuit Court and obtained assistance of interpreter – Where Circuit Court dismissed application for judicial review and delivered ex tempore judgment – Where Circuit Court orders were translated to first respondent but ex tempore reasons were not – Where written reasons delivered by Circuit Court after first respondent filed notice of appeal in Federal Court of Australia – Where Federal Court held that failure of Circuit Court to have ex tempore reasons for judgment translated resulted in denial of procedural fairness – Whether Federal Court erred in holding that Circuit Court denied first respondent procedural fairness – Whether Federal Court erred in holding that setting aside Circuit Court's judgment necessary to provide first respondent with practical justice.