The Federal Court held that a finding that a visa applicant was 'at best indifferent' to the accuracy and completeness of an agent-prepared visa application is insufficient to establish that false information in the application was 'purposely untrue' for the purposes of PIC 4020. The concept of 'purpose' and the requirement of 'fraud or deception' under Trivedi are inconsistent with mere indifference; a decision-maker must identify some person who knowingly or intentionally included false information, though the applicant need not be shown to have been aware of that fact. The Court also held that the Tribunal's use of the phrase 'at best indifferent' did not imply a finding of a mental state beyond indifference, but rather reflected the Tribunal's approach of deciding the case on the basis most favourable to the appellant.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.