The Federal Court held that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error on two grounds in affirming a decision not to revoke mandatory visa cancellation under s 501CA(4). First, the Tribunal failed to identify, read and evaluate the applicant's representation about the massive personal impact of removal on him as a father — a matter squarely within the 'legal consequences' consideration under paragraph 9.1(a) of Direction No. 110 — and this was distinguishable from Stoneley because the Tribunal did not subsume that representation into its evaluation elsewhere. Second, the Tribunal denied the unrepresented applicant procedural fairness by failing to reiterate the self-incrimination privilege warning before cross-examination on a police protection statement alleging sexual assault, where the statement's contents were apt to confuse a non-legally trained person (particularly given the complainant's recorded statement that she did not wish to make a criminal complaint). The Court issued certiorari, mandamus and a writ of prohibition restraining use of the Tribunal's reasons and hearing transcript on remittal.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.