Case: Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Outcome: distinguished
The duty of a judicial officer to provide reasons for decisions made, and the content of that duty, were best articulated by Meagher JA in Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430. His Honour there initially addressed the obligation to provide reasons and then the purpose of providing reasons. His Honour, at 441 2, thus observed: The obligation to provide reasons for decision. It is well settled that a judge or magistrate at first instance in particular cases has an obligation to provide reasons for the judgment given.... That obligation arises as a matter of judicial duty ... but only as a normal, not universal incident of the judicial process.... It does not arise from legislation as it does in the field of administrative law: see, for example, Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (Cth) s13, Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (Cth) s28, s37 and s43. ... Despite the fact that the obligation on courts to provide reasons may have a different origin, the former being an incident of judicial duty and the latter being a legislative requirement, there is no reason in principle or as a matter of policy why the content of reasons for both types of decision should not be similar, if not the same: they essentially serve the same purpose. The purpose of providing reasons for decision Perhaps the primary reason for an obligation on courts to provide reasons is the fact that a party seeking an appeal may generally only appeal where the trial judge has made an error of law. The absence of reasons or insufficient reasons may not allow an appeal court to determine whether the trial judge's verdict was or was not based on an error of law or an appealable error. However, the provision of full reasons has other benefits. A failure to provide sufficient reasons can and often does lead to a real sense of grievance that a party does not know or understand why the decision was made.... This court has previously accepted the proposition that a judge is bound to expose his reasoning in sufficient detail to enable a losing party to understand why they lost.... One reason is obvious: if decisions cannot be understood, a feeling of injustice can arise and, as Justice Brennan of the United States Supreme Court (see Huxtable, "A Question-Mark Over The Adversarial System" (Dee 1995) 30 (No 11) Australian Lawyer 17) recently perhaps overstated: "...Nothing rankles more in the human heart than a brooding sense of injustice. Illness we can put up with. But injustice makes us want to pull things down." Aside from the sense of injustice which can be caused, there is a broader interest in maintaining public acceptance of judicial decisions and the judicial system. The requirement to provide reasons can operate prophylactically on the judicial mind, guarding against the birth of an unconsidered or impulsive decision. It enhances judicial accountability. The provision of reasons has an educative effect: it exposes the trial judge or magistrate to review and criticism and it facilitates and encourages consistency in decisions. The educative effect does not stop with judges but extends to other lawyers, to government and to the public. Decisions of courts usually influence the way in which society acts and it is trite to point out that it is better to understand why one should act in a particular way. The provision of adequate reasons will save time for appeal courts both in reducing the number of appeals and in reducing the time taken in considering any appeals. Thus, any increase in judicial resources required at the trial level should be countered by a reduction in judicial resources required at the appellate level. ... 22 The position taken by the Respondent Minister, however, was essentially threefold, namely that: (i) the observations of Meagher JA in Beale as to the content of adequate reasons for a decision at first instance, do not provide an appropriate " touchstone " as to those matters which the Federal Magistrate was obliged to address in the present proceedings; (ii) the reasons in fact provided by the Federal Magistrate did adequately explain the decision reached; and (iii) in the event that there was a deficiency in those reasons, this Court, as a matter of discretion, should decline to allow the appeal if satisfied that the decision of the Federal Magistrate could be supported -- albeit for reasons not disclosed by the Federal Magistrate but which can be ascertained by this Court. 23 The first of those submissions must readily be accepted. There is a fundamental distinction between the responsibilities of a trial judge entrusted with the function of making findings of fact (as in Beale ) and the responsibilities of a judge conducting judicial review. Central to that distinction is that in judicial review proceedings the factual merits of the decision under review are left to the decision-maker and the court conducting the judicial review is confined to a review of the legality of the decision reached. 24 That distinction necessarily dictates a reconsideration of the approach set forth by Meagher JA in Beale. The Federal Magistrate's task in the present proceedings was to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. That was essentially a task of considering the terms of the relevant legislation and reviewing the conclusions expressed by the Tribunal as against the findings of fact and reasons provided. And that task is confined by s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). 25 Those matters which a Federal Magistrate, it is considered, should address in reasons for decision will depend upon the factual and legal issues involved. In those circumstances where the ground of judicial review being relied upon is a denial of procedural fairness, it may be appropriate for the Federal Magistrate to consider evidence not before the Tribunal, but evidence that is directed to the manner in which the Tribunal proceeded. That evidence may be contested and it may be necessary to make findings of fact. Where, however, the ground of review is said to be an error of law, it may be unnecessary to go beyond the findings of fact made by the Tribunal and the legislative provisions being applied. 26 Whatever the ground of review, however, the reasons of the Federal Magistrates Court must be sufficient to explain to both the litigant and others the basis upon which that Court proceeded and the reasons why the application to review the decision of the Tribunal is either to be dismissed or why the decision is said to be wrong in law. Reasons do not adequately address the grounds of review sought to be resolved if the litigant -- or this Court -- is left to speculate as to what it was that the Federal Magistrate had in mind when he reached the conclusions that formed the final decision. 50 It should finally be noted that the adequacy of reasons provided must necessarily be determined in the context of each individual case. As concluded by Meagher JA in Beale , supra , " no mechanical formula can be given in determining what reasons are required ". The adequacy of the reasons provided by the Federal Magistrates Court must also be necessarily influenced by the volume of decisions (especially migration decisions) resolved by that Court. 51 The orders of the Court are: 1. The appeal be allowed. 2. The orders of Howard FM in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 17 January 2008 be set aside. 3. The proceedings be remitted to Howard FM for determination in accordance with law. I certify that the preceding fifty-one (51) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Flick. Associate: Dated: 22 May 2008 Counsel for the First Appellant: The First Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Second Appellant: The Second Appellant did not appear Solicitor for the First Respondent: Z McDonald (DLA Phillips Fox) Date of Hearing: 7 and 8 May 2008 Date of Judgment: 22 May 2008 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2008/735.html