The Federal Court held that illogical or irrational reasoning by an administrative decision-maker will only constitute jurisdictional error where the decision or state of satisfaction is one that a decision-maker acting rationally could not have reached on the available material. The Court confirmed that not every logical misstep amounts to jurisdictional error - the error must infect a 'critical' factual finding. The Court also held that administrative tribunals can draw inferences from the absence of evidence and rely on matters of common knowledge without specific evidence, particularly regarding controlled environments like immigration detention.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.