Case: SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24 ; (2005) 215 ALR 162
Outcome: cited
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ, after referring to SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24 ; (2005) 215 ALR 162 , said at [15]-[22]: [15] This then requires close attention to the circumstances in which s 424A is engaged. Section 424A does not require notice to be given of every matter the tribunal might think relevant to the decision under review . Rather, the tribunal's obligation is limited to the written provision of "particulars of any information that the tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review". What, then, was the "information" that the appellants say the tribunal should have provided? In their written submissions, the appellants appeared to focus on the requisite "information" as being the "inconsistencies" between their statutory declaration and oral evidence. However, in oral argument they focused on the provision of the relevant passages in the statutory declaration itself, from which the inconsistencies were later said to arise. [16] Four points must be noted about this submission. First, while questions might remain about the scope of par (b) of s 424A(3) , it was accepted by both sides that information "that the applicant gave for the purpose of the application" did not refer back to the application for the protection visa itself, and thus did not encompass the appellants' statutory declaration. In this regard, the parties were content to assume the correctness of the Full Federal Court decisions in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Al Shamry [2001] FCA 919 ; [(2001) 110 FCR 27] and SZEEU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 2 ; [(2006) 150 FCR 214]. Accordingly, no occasion now arises for this Court to determine whether that assumption was correct. [17] Secondly, the appellants assumed, but did not demonstrate, that the statutory declaration "would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review". The statutory criterion does not, for example, turn on "the reasoning process of the tribunal" , or "the tribunal's published reasons" . The reason for affirming the decision that is under review is a matter that depends upon the criteria for the making of that decision in the first place. The tribunal does not operate in a statutory vacuum, and its role is dependent upon the making of administrative decisions upon criteria to be found elsewhere in the Act. The use of the future conditional tense (would be) rather than the indicative strongly suggests that the operation of s 424A(1)(a) is to be determined in advance and independently of the tribunal's particular reasoning on the facts of the case. Here, the appropriate criterion was to be found in s 36(1) of the Act, being the provision under which the appellants sought their protection visa. The "reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review" was therefore that the appellants were not persons to whom Australia owed protection obligations under the Convention. When viewed in that light, it is difficult to see why the relevant passages in the appellants' statutory declaration would itself be "information that the tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review". Those portions of the statutory declaration did not contain in their terms a rejection, denial or undermining of the appellants' claims to be persons to whom Australia owed protection obligations. Indeed, if their contents were believed, they would, one might have thought, have been a relevant step towards rejecting, not affirming, the decision under review. [18] Thirdly and conversely, if the reason why the tribunal affirmed the decision under review was the tribunal's disbelief of the appellants' evidence arising from inconsistencies therein, it is difficult to see how such disbelief could be characterised as constituting "information" within the meaning of para (a) of s 424A(1). Again, if the tribunal affirmed the decision because even the best view of the appellants' evidence failed to disclose a Convention nexus, it is hard to see how such a failure can constitute "information". Finn and Stone JJ correctly observed in VAF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 123 ; [(2004) 206 ALR 471 at 477] that the word "information" ...does not encompass the tribunal's subjective appraisals, thought processes or determinations ... nor does it extend to identified gaps, defects or lack of detail or specificity in evidence or to conclusions arrived at by the tribunal in weighing up the evidence by reference to those gaps, etc... If the contrary were true, s 424A would in effect oblige the tribunal to give advance written notice not merely of its reasons but of each step in its prospective reasoning process. However broadly "information" be defined, its meaning in this context is related to the existence of evidentiary material or documentation, not the existence of doubts, inconsistencies or the absence of evidence. The appellants were thus correct to concede that the relevant "information" was not to be found in inconsistencies or disbelief, as opposed to the text of the statutory declaration itself. [19] Fourthly, and regardless of the matters discussed above, the appellants' argument suggested that s 424A was engaged by any material that contained or tended to reveal inconsistencies in an applicant's evidence. Such an argument gives s 424A an anomalous temporal operation. While the Act provides for procedures to be followed regarding the issue of a notice pursuant to s 424A before a hearing, [Footnote states: "Notably, in the sequential interaction of ss 424A , 424B , 424C (2) and 425 (2) of the Act."], no such procedure exists for the invocation of that section after a hearing. However, if the appellants be correct, it was only after the hearing that the tribunal could have provided any written notice of the relevant passages in the statutory declaration from which the inconsistencies were said to arise, as those inconsistencies could not have arisen unless and until the appellants gave oral evidence. If the purpose of s 424A was to secure a fair hearing of the appellants' case, it seems odd that its effect would be to preclude the tribunal from dealing with such matters during the hearing itself. [20] Moreover, supposing the appellants had responded to a written notice provided by the tribunal after the hearing, if inconsistencies remained in their evidence, would s 424A then oblige the tribunal to issue a fresh invitation to the appellants to comment on the inconsistencies revealed by or remaining despite the original response to the invitation to comment? If so, was the tribunal obliged to issue new notices for so long as the appellants' testimony lacked credibility? If the appellants' desired construction of s 424A leads to such a circulus inextricabilis, it is a likely indication that such a construction is in error. [21] The short answer to all these points is that, on the facts of this case, s 424A was not engaged at all: the relevant parts of the appellants' statutory declaration were not "information that the tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review". Section 424A has a more limited operation than the appellants assumed: its effect is not to create a back-door route to a merits review in the federal courts of credibility findings made by the tribunal. That being so, this case does not require this Court to address the differences in opinion in the Federal Court concerning the "unbundling" of tribunal reasoning. [Footnote states: "Compare VAF with SZEEU ."] [22] Once the limited scope of s 424A is appreciated, and once the proper meaning of the word "reason" in s 424A(1)(a) is discerned, the apparent need for "unbundling" is correspondingly reduced. The respondent minister's concern about "minor" or "unimportant" matters engaging s 424A is largely to be resolved by the proper application of s 424A itself, not by any extra-statutory process of "unbundling". (Emphasis added.)