Case: Sales v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1807
Outcome: discussed
The applicant's argument in support of Ground 3 relied almost entirely upon the decision of Allsop J in Sales v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1807. In that case his Honour set aside a decision by the Minister to cancel the applicant's visas, namely an absorbed person visa and a transitional (permanent) visa, because the applicant had been denied procedural fairness. 54 In Sales the applicant was given only 14 days to respond to a letter hand delivered to him on 8 August 2006 together with a copy of the Direction that set out, over some 11 pages, the matters that the Minister regarded as relevant to her determination. The letter also included a number of other documents, such as extracts from the Act , the applicant's criminal history, pre-release reports of various dates, parole reports and a copy of the sentencing judge's remarks. 55 Allsop J took into account the fact that the applicant in Sales was not a well-educated man. He also inferred that his family were not "people of wide or deep resources", or otherwise of significant education. His Honour said that it was clear that the task at hand for the applicant and those concerned with his welfare was likely to be a difficult one because of the seriousness of the crime for which he had served 18 years in prison, namely a particularly callous and brutal murder. To require him to put forward in a coherent fashion a response to the Department's letter in the space of 14 days was unrealistic and plainly inadequate. 56 However, the case of Mr Moore can, in no way, be equated with Sales . As previously indicated, Mr Moore was served with a notice of intention to consider cancellation of his absorbed person visa no later than about 5 July 2006 (seven days after the date on which the letter was sent). He was told that any response must be received by 24 July 2006. 57 Had matters rested there, the applicant would have had reasonable grounds for complaint. Nineteen days is scarcely an improvement over the 14 days regarded as inadequate in Sales . However, on 11 July 2006 Victoria Legal Aid requested an extension of time within which to respond. On 18 July 2006 the Department granted an extension until 21 August 2006. Thus the applicant was given more than six weeks to provide a response to the Minister's notice, a period I regard as reasonable in the circumstances. 58 Indeed, the applicant's position was actually stronger than this. On 12 October 2006 the Department wrote to Victoria Legal Aid inviting comment on matters it considered relevant to the notice of intention to consider cancellation. On 24 October 2006, Victoria Legal Aid responded to that letter. There was nothing to suggest that the applicant could not have added anything further to his earlier submission, in support of his claim to be permitted to retain his absorbed person visa. In fact the Department's letter of 12 October 2006 stated, after inviting the applicant to address the matters specifically drawn to his attention for comment, that he: " ... may also wish to provide other information that he considers should be taken into account when a decision is made whether to cancel his visa." 59 In my view, the applicant was given ample opportunity to respond to the notice. He was not denied procedural fairness. Accordingly, Ground 3 is not made out.