The Federal Court held that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider the known views of three affected children (Child B, Child C and Child D) as expressed in handwritten letters tendered as a separate exhibit, as required by paragraph 8.4(4)(f) of Direction 110. The Court inferred from the absence of any reference to these letters in the Tribunal's best interests analysis — despite their central relevance — that the Tribunal had not considered them, and rejected the Minister's argument that the views were subsumed in the Tribunal's general findings. The Court dismissed grounds alleging failure to make individual best interests determinations for each child (finding implicit compliance), failure to consider the nature of harm from family violence (finding detailed consideration across the reasons), and failure to consider ties to Australia from the applicant's perspective (finding the Tribunal addressed this at a sufficient level of generality).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.